On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 at 14:32, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2024-Jan-10, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > > On 9 Jan 2024, at 23:18, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think we need to be more aggressive about marking things returned
> > > with feedback when they don't get updated.
> >
> > I very much agree. Having marked quite a lot of patches as RwF when being CFM
> > I can attest that it gets very little off-list pushback or angry emails. While
> > it does happen, the overwhelming majority of responses are understanding and
> > positive, so no CFM should be worried about "being the bad guy".
>
> I like this idea very much -- return patches when the author does not
> respond AFTER receiving feedback or the patch rotting.
>
> However, this time around I saw that a bunch of patches were returned or
> threatened to be returned JUST BECAUSE nobody had replied to the thread,
> with a justification like "you need to generate more interest in your
> patch". This is a TERRIBLE idea, and there's one reason why creating a
> new commitfest entry in the following commitfest is no good:
I have seen that most of the threads are being discussed and being
promptly updated. But very few of the entries become stale and just
move from one commitfest to another commitfest without anything being
done. For these kinds of entries, we were just trying to see if the
author or anybody is really interested or not in pursuing it.
We should do something about these kinds of entries, there were few
suggestions like tagging under a new category or so, can we add a new
status to park these entries something like "Waiting for direction".
The threads which have no discussion for 6 months or so can be flagged
to this new status and these can be discussed in one of the developer
meetings or so and conclude on these items.
Regards,
Vignesh