On 5/17/24 08:31, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 14:19, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote:
On 5/16/24 22:26, Robert Haas wrote:
> For example, imagine that the CommitFest is FORCIBLY empty
> until a week before it starts. You can still register patches in the
> system generally, but that just means they get CI runs, not that
> they're scheduled to be reviewed. A week before the CommitFest,
> everyone who has a patch registered in the system that still applies
> gets an email saying "click here if you think this patch should be
> reviewed in the upcoming CommitFest -- if you don't care about the
> patch any more or it needs more work before other people review it,
> don't click here". Then, the CommitFest ends up containing only the
> things where the patch author clicked there during that week.
100% agree. This is in line with what I suggested on an adjacent part of
the thread.
Such a proposal would basically mean that no-one that cares about
their patches getting reviews can go on holiday and leave work behind
during the week before a commit fest. That seems quite undesirable to
me.
Well, I'm sure I'll get flamed for this suggestion, be here goes anyway...
I wrote:
Namely, the week before commitfest I don't actually know if I will have
the time during that month, but I will make sure my patch is in the
commitfest just in case I get a few clear days to work on it. Because if
it isn't there, I can't take advantage of those "found" hours.
A solution to both of these issues (yours and mine) would be to allow
things to be added *during* the CF month. What is the point of having a
"freeze" before every CF anyway? Especially if they start out clean. If
something is ready for review on day 8 of the CF, why not let it be
added for review?
--
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
