Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>,
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-05-17T04:58:09Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 17.05.24 00:13, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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". Yeah, some fine-tuning might be required. But I would be wary of over-designing too many new states at this point. I think the key idea is that there ought to be a state that communicates "needs attention from someone other than author, reviewer, or committer".