On 2018-03-02 18:08:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > - that there's a single point documenting the state of the patch, to > > avoid situations where different people interpret a thread differently > > without noticing. > > I think that third point is at best an idealized statement, and it's not > very reflective of actual practice. We're not great about updating the CF > entry's state, and even if we were, I don't think there's a bright line > between Needs Review and Waiting On Author. There may have been enough > feedback provided so that the author has something to do, yet not so much > that there's no point in further review.
Yea, I think it's a bit of hit/miss. But I do think that *if it happens* the discussion around that often provides some clarification. > But anyway you said you wanted to summarize current actual practice, > and this isn't quite what really happens IME. I think it's OK to state some of the aspirational goals, even if they only halfway work. And I think we should evolve the practices after agreeing on what they currently are ;) > There are a couple of meta-goals as well, although I'm not sure whether > they belong in this document: > > * Encourage people to review other people's patches. This isn't just > to make the patches better, it's to make the reviewers better: they > gain familiarity with the PG code base. > * Ensure that committers don't have to *always* feel guilty about > not working on other people's patches instead of their own. Otherwise > we'd just stay in CF mode all the time. Oh, yes, I think both of these belong. > > Submitting a patch as a commitfest entry to a specific commitfest > > implies a statement by the author that the patch needs input from > > others. That input can be agreement on design decisions, high level code > > review, testing, etc. > > ... or even just that the author would like somebody to commit it. Oh, right ;) > Also, there's at least one rule you forgot to cover, concerning > asking people to review patches more or less proportionally to the > amount of patches they've submitted. This is surely a lot squishier > than the other rules, but without it, nothing much happens. Agreed. I think we actually should be much more aggressive about it too. Greetings, Andres Freund