When I was CFM for a couple cycles I started with the idea that I was going to try being a hardass and rejecting or RWF all the patches that had gotten negative reviews and been bounced forward.
Except when I actually went through them I didn't find many. Mostly like Robert I found perfectly reasonable patches that had received generally positive reviews and had really complex situations that really needed more analysis. I also found a lot of patches that were just not getting any reviews at all :( and rejecting those didn't feel great.... On Thu, May 16, 2024, 21:48 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes: > >> On 16 May 2024, at 20:30, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The original intent of CommitFests, and of commitfest.postgresql.org > >> by extension, was to provide a place where patches could be registered > >> to indicate that they needed to be reviewed, thus enabling patch > >> authors and patch reviewers to find each other in a reasonably > >> efficient way. I don't think it's working any more. > > > But which part is broken though, the app, our commitfest process and > workflow > > and the its intent, or our assumption that we follow said process and > workflow > > which may or may not be backed by evidence? IMHO, from being CMF many > times, > > there is a fair bit of the latter, which excacerbates the problem. This > is > > harder to fix with more or better software though. > > Yeah. I think that Robert put his finger on a big part of the > problem, which is that punting a patch to the next CF is a lot > easier than rejecting it, particularly for less-senior CFMs > who may not feel they have the authority to say no (or at > least doubt that the patch author would accept it). It's hard > even for senior people to get patch authors to take no for an > answer --- I know I've had little luck at it --- so maybe that > problem is inherent. But a CF app full of patches that are > unlikely ever to go anywhere isn't helpful. > > It's also true that some of us are abusing the process a bit. > I know I frequently stick things into the CF app even if I intend > to commit them pretty darn soon, because it's a near-zero-friction > way to run CI on them, and I'm too lazy to learn how to do that > otherwise. I like David's suggestion of a "Pending Commit" > status, or maybe I should just put such patches into RfC state > immediately? However, short-lived entries like that don't seem > like they're a big problem beyond possibly skewing the CF statistics > a bit. It's the stuff that keeps hanging around that seems like > the core of the issue. > > >> I spent a good deal of time going through the CommitFest this week > > > And you deserve a big Thank You for that. > > + many > > regards, tom lane > > >
