Feedback-ID: ie0a040ee:Fastmail
Message-ID: <45faf826-42b7-4ce9-a081-0903d033f411@eisentraut.org>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 23:35:45 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <CA+TgmobnTcNq1xQE_+jxBEtj+AjKg0r_p5YNFHDE+EDnpcpFxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_Yx8utYpBOfmHdqLB64KjEGUsQG8j0ZGNNUS8_8vHbSbw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAKRu_Yx8utYpBOfmHdqLB64KjEGUsQG8j0ZGNNUS8_8vHbSbw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/45faf826-42b7-4ce9-a081-0903d033f411%40eisentraut.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 16.05.24 22:46, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> I was reflecting on why a general purpose patch tracker sounded
> appealing to me, and I realized that, at least at this time of year, I
> have a few patches that really count as "waiting on author" that I
> know I need to do additional work on before they need more review but
> which aren't currently my top priority. I should probably simply
> withdraw and re-register them. My justification was that I'll lose
> them if I don't keep them in the commitfest app. But, I could just,
> you know, save them somewhere myself instead of polluting the
> commitfest app with them. I don't know if others are in this
> situation. Anyway, I'm definitely currently guilty of parking.

I don't have a problem with that at all.  It's pretty understandable 
that many patches are parked between say April and July.

The key is the keep the status up to date.

If we have 890 patches in Waiting for Author and 100 patches in Ready 
for Committer and 10 patches in Needs Review, and those 10 patches are 
actually reviewable, then that's good.  There might need to be a 
"background process" to make sure those 890 waiting patches are not 
parked forever and those 100 patches actually get committed sometime, 
but in principle this is the system working.

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.