On Monday, March 4, 2013, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com<javascript:;>> > wrote: > >> I thought it was a useful idea anyway, but I could see his point. This > >> should probably move to "Waiting on Author" when it happens, presuming > >> that the person who wrote something is motivated to see the change > >> committed. (If they weren't, why did they write it?) > > > > Except that the implication of "waiting on author" is that, if there's > > no updates in a couple weeks, we bounce it. And the author doesn't > > necessarily control a bikeshedding discussion about syntax, for example. > > That's true. I think, though, that the basic problem is that we've > lost track of the ostensible purpose of a CommitFest, which is to > commit the patches that *are already ready* for commit.
Is that true of all commitfests, or only the last one in a cycle? If the former, I think the existence of the "waiting on author" category belies this point. > Very little > of the recently-committed stuff was ready to commit on January 15th, > or even close to it, and the percentage of what's left that falls into > that category is probably dropping steadily. At this point, if > there's not a consensus on it, the correct status is "Returned with > Feedback". Specifically, the feedback that we're not going to commit > it this CommitFest because we don't have consensus on it yet. > That is a fair point, and I think Tom has said something similar. But it leaves open the question of who it is that is supposed to be implementing it. Is it the commit-fest manager who decides there is not sufficient consensus, or the author, or a self-assigned reviewer? I know that I certainly would not rush into an ongoing a conversation, in which several of the participants have their commit-bits, and say "I'm calling myself the reviewer and am calling it dead, please stop discussing this." Or even just, "stop discussing it as an item for 9.3". I think the role of the commit-fest manager is that of a traffic-cop, not a magistrate. But if we are going to have "Commitfest II: The summary judgement", that needs to be run by a magistrate, as a separate process from the ordinary part of a commitfest. Cheers, Jeff
