Hi,
On 5/16/24 4:31 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> Yeah. I think that Robert put his finger on a big part of the
>> problem, which is that punting a patch to the next CF is a lot
>> easier than rejecting it, particularly for less-senior CFMs
>> who may not feel they have the authority to say no (or at
>> least doubt that the patch author would accept it).
>
> Maybe we should just make it a policy that *nothing* gets moved forward
> from commitfest-to-commitfest and therefore the author needs to care
> enough to register for the next one?
>
Or at least nothing get moved forward from March.
Spending time on a patch during a major version doesn't mean that you
have time to do the same for the next major version.
That way July could start "clean" with patches people are interested in
and willing to maintain during the next year.
Also, it is a bit confusing that f.ex.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/
already shows 40 patches as Committed...
So, having some sort of "End of Development" state in general would be good.
Best regards,
Jesper
