On 2024-Jan-10, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 9 Jan 2024, at 23:18, Robert Haas <robertmh...@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: At the FOSDEM developer meeting, we do a run of CF patch triage, where we check the topmost patches in order of number-of-commitfests. If you return an old patch and a new CF entry is created, this number is reset, and we could quite possibly fail to detect some very old patch because of this. At times, the attention a patch gets during the CF triage is sufficient to get the patch moving forward after long inactivity, so this is not academic. Case in point: [1]. So by all means let's return patches that rot or fail to get updated per feedback. But DO NOT return patches because of inactivity. [1] https://postgr.es/m/202402011550.sfszd46247zi@alvherre.pgsql -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Las cosas son buenas o malas segun las hace nuestra opinión" (Lisias)