Subject: Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 18:13:18 -0400

Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]> 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

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 06:58:09 +0200

> 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".