Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nFJvb-00063J-Oi for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 18:00:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nFJva-0005sm-Lg for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 18:00:22 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nFJva-0005sW-Cf for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 18:00:22 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nFJvX-0004jq-VR for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 18:00:21 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 212I0IeL015916; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 13:00:18 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Jaime Casanova cc: Julien Rouhaud , Greg Stark , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: 2022-01 Commitfest In-reply-to: References: <20220112054142.u3ha2hky7r76vxq7@jrouhaud> <20220117153843.4qoevdgab3xycopb@jrouhaud> <20220125031445.rm53piwl7yipgqqs@jrouhaud> <20220202161519.5owvpmckw2bb5kg2@jrouhaud> <20220202172853.64yxtit33vppswdl@jrouhaud> Comments: In-reply-to Jaime Casanova message dated "Wed, 02 Feb 2022 12:45:40 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <15914.1643824818.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 13:00:18 -0500 Message-ID: <15915.1643824818@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Jaime Casanova writes: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:28:53AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >> If we close all patches that had a review just because they weren't per= fect in >> their initial submission, we're just going to force everyone to re-regi= ster >> their patch for every single commit fest. I don't see that doing anyth= ing >> apart from making sure that everyone stops contributing. > I had the same problem last time, "Returned with feedback" didn't feel > fine in some cases. Agreed, we're not here to cause make-work for submitters. RWF is appropriate if the patch has been in Waiting On Author for awhile and doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but otherwise we should just punt it to the next CF. Anyway, thanks to Julien for doing this mostly-thankless task this time! regards, tom lane