On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:56, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2022-Mar-31, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 02:41:26PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote: > > > > > > Patches that are Waiting on Author and haven't had activity in months > > > -- traditionally they were set to Returned with Feedback. It seems the > > > feeling these days is to not lose state on them and just move them to > > > the next CF. I'm not sure that's wise, it ends up just filling up the > > > list with patches nobody's working on. > > > > +1 for closing such patches as Returned with Feedback, for the same reasons > > Robert and Peter already stated. > > Feature request for the commitfest app: any time a patch is closed as > RwF, send an automated email replying to the last posted version of the > patch, indicating the state change and the URL of the CF entry. That > way, if somebody wants to resurrect it later, it's easy to find the CF > entry that needs to be edited.
Can normal users actually punt their own patch to a next commitfest? All I see for my old patches is the 'change status'-button, and the available options are not obviously linked to 'change registration to this or upcoming CF'. Updating the status of RwF/Rejected patches from previous commitfests to Open (to the best of my knowledge) doesn't automatically register it to newer CFs, so 'resurrecting' in the CF application can't really be done by normal users.
I know that this has happened earlier; where someone re-opened their old RwF-patches in closed commitfests; after which those patches got lost in the traffic because they are not open in the current (or upcoming) commitfests.
In my experience, re-applying an updated patch to a new CF is very easy. You can re-attach the existing discussion thread. The only information that can be lost is CF-specific fields like reviewer/author which is worth re-adding manually.
