Re: Huge commitfest app update upcoming: Tags, Draft CF, Help page, and automated commitfest creat/open/close

On 22/06/2025 16:21, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Sunday, June 22, 2025, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>
>     On 20.06.25 16:41, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
>             I sense there could be some confusion whether such draft
>         patches
>             should go into the regular commit fest or the draft commit
>         fest, and
>             then also when they should move between them.
>
>         Draft CF patches with “Needs Review” are looking for feedback
>         from others or otherwise aid in development for a patch that
>         isn’t ready to be committed even if said review turns up
>         nothing or is otherwise fully resolved.  Patches in Drafts are
>         never marked Ready to Commit, they get moved to Open first.
>
>         It will be nice if people spend time providing
>         reviews/feedback to patches in Drafts when requested.
>
>         It’s purely the author’s judgement on the readiness of the
>         patch, whether absent our policy they would mark it ready to
>         commit or not.  If they believe it is it should be moved to
>         open, if no, it should remain in drafts.  This is mostly like
>         what happens today but with a clear delineation between
>         reviews to help and reviews to approve commit-ability.
>
>         Otherwise, it’s a place where author patches can sit without
>         having to be bumped to the next cf every other month and where
>         an author patch can be ignored by everyone else not authoring it.
>
>
>     I don't know about this.  This could become an ongoing source of
>     confusion, without any clear benefit.  Either the draft and the
>     "real" commitfest are going to be indistinguishable, because they
>     are just two places to look for stuff to review in various phases
>     of maturity.  Or the draft commitfest is just not going to get any
>     attention, which will be annoying for those who put things there
>     hoping to get attention.
>
>
> Yes, more experienced people have to want to help people who can’t 
> just get a patch ready to commit on their own.  As opposed to only 
> reviewing things they expect to perform the formality of the review to 
> make it ready to commit.  The tooling help distinguish those cases if 
> used properly.  But people have to choose to do the things it 
> encourages/enables.
>
> If one performs a review of a non-draft and it isn’t close to ready, 
> encourage the author to move it into drafts as part of a teaching 
> moment of how their expectations of done-ness and yours differ.
>
> We aren’t going to get 100% accuracy here but it’s is better 
> information that intends to address the complaint that what we had was 
> not fit for purpose because the information it provided was 
> insufficient.  Tags get even more granular while this provides 
> high-level draft/non-draft delineation where drafts don’t have to keep 
> being shuffled around.  Review Need still needs review no matter where 
> it is.  That doesn’t change.


+1

-- 

Vik Fearing