On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 08:29:08PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > Correct, if one looks at the activity log for an old entry the pattern of > moving to needs review, then to the next CF, then WoA is clearly visible.
That's the tricky part. It does not really make sense either to keep moving patches that are waiting on author for months. The scan of the CF app I have done was about those idle patches waiting on author for months. It takes time as authors and/or reviewers tend to sometimes not update the status of a patch so the state in the app does not reflect the reality, but this vacuuming limits the noise in for the next CFs.
I'm pretty sure this is the original reason for adding this -- to enforce that this review happens.
Prior to this being added, all patches moved would end up in "needs review" status. When we changed it so that the patch would keep it's status in the next CF, we explicitly wanted to avoid having lots of patches in WoA status in the new CF.
But this was 5 years ago, and the feature was new at the time. This may have been wrong already then, or it may simply be that we use the system in a different way now (and we for example did not have the cfbot back then). Either one of those is a good reason to re-visit the decision. And it certainly sounds from this thread that nobody is actually arguing to keep that behaviour -- unless that changes knowing the original reason?
