MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM-w4HO15FZQ0NjZ+WFB7k17JeamvGBCVZFiVUSLhD5VC8R7Uw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM-w4HO15FZQ0NjZ+WFB7k17JeamvGBCVZFiVUSLhD5VC8R7Uw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:34:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAM-w4HNxvi210GHO35uuUFF2_AXSPeGjCKnLWT3Cy4KoWeFQAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Commitfest Closed
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM-w4HNxvi210GHO35uuUFF2_AXSPeGjCKnLWT3Cy4KoWeFQAg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

I moved to next CF almost all the Needs Review and Waiting on Author patches.

The remaining ones are either:

1) Bug fixes, Documentation, or testing patches that we may want to
make Open Issues

2) Patches that look like we may want to mark Rejected or Returned
with Feedback and start a new discussion

3) Patches whose email history confused me, such as where multiple
patches are under discussion

I also haven't gone through the Ready for Committer patches yet. I'll
do that at the end of the day.

Incidentally I marked a lot of the Waiting on Author patches as Needs
Review before moving to the next CF because generally I think they
were only Waiting on Author because of the cfbot failures and they
were waiting on design feedback.

Also, as another aside, I find a lot of the patches that haven't been
reviewed were patches that were posted without any specific concerns
or questions. That tends to imply the author thinks the patch is ready
and just waiting on a comprehensive review which is a daunting task.

I would suggest if you're an author posting a WIP and there's some
specific uncertainties that you have about the patch that asking about
them would encourage reviewers to dive in and help you make progress.