Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>,
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-05-16T22:13:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes: > On 16.05.24 23:46, Tom Lane wrote: >> Right, so what can we do about that? Does Needs Review state need to >> be subdivided, and if so how? > Maybe a new state "Unclear". ... > I think, if we consider the core mission of the commitfest app, we need > to be more protective of the Needs Review state. Yeah, makes sense. > So a third status that encompasses the various other situations like > maybe forgotten by author, disagreements between author and reviewer, > process difficulties, needs some senior developer intervention, etc. > could be helpful. Hmm, "forgotten by author" seems to generally turn into "this has been in WOA state a long time". Not sure we have a problem representing that, only with a process for eventually retiring such entries. Your other three examples all sound like "needs senior developer attention", which could be a helpful state that's distinct from "ready for committer". It's definitely not the same as "Unclear". regards, tom lane