On 5/16/24 15:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>>> On 16 May 2024, at 20:30, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The original intent of CommitFests, and of commitfest.postgresql.org
>>> by extension, was to provide a place where patches could be registered
>>> to indicate that they needed to be reviewed, thus enabling patch
>>> authors and patch reviewers to find each other in a reasonably
>>> efficient way. I don't think it's working any more.
>
>> But which part is broken though, the app, our commitfest process and workflow
>> and the its intent, or our assumption that we follow said process and workflow
>> which may or may not be backed by evidence? IMHO, from being CMF many times,
>> there is a fair bit of the latter, which excacerbates the problem. This is
>> harder to fix with more or better software though.
>
> 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?
>>> I spent a good deal of time going through the CommitFest this week
>
>> And you deserve a big Thank You for that.
>
> + many
+1 agreed
--
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
