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".