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>
Subject: Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose
In-reply-to: <45faf826-42b7-4ce9-a081-0903d033f411@eisentraut.org>
References: <CA+TgmobnTcNq1xQE_+jxBEtj+AjKg0r_p5YNFHDE+EDnpcpFxA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAKRu_Yx8utYpBOfmHdqLB64KjEGUsQG8j0ZGNNUS8_8vHbSbw@mail.gmail.com> <45faf826-42b7-4ce9-a081-0903d033f411@eisentraut.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
	message dated "Thu, 16 May 2024 23:35:45 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2186207.1715895987.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
Message-ID: <2186208.1715895987@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2186208.1715895987%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
> The problem is if we have 180 patches in Needs Review, and only 20 are 
> really actually ready to be reviewed.  And a second-order problem is 
> that if you already know that this will be the case, you give up before 
> even looking.

Right, so what can we do about that?  Does Needs Review state need to
be subdivided, and if so how?

If it's just that a patch should be in some other state altogether,
we should simply encourage people to change the state as soon as they
discover that.  I think the problem is not so much "90% are in the
wrong state" as "each potential reviewer has to rediscover that".

At this point it seems like there's consensus to have a "parking"
section of the CF app, separate from the time-boxed CFs, and I hope
somebody will go make that happen.  But I don't think that's our only
issue, so we need to keep thinking about what should be improved.

			regards, tom lane