On 22/06/2025 16:21, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2025, Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote:
On 20.06.25 16:41, David G. Johnston wrote:
I sense there could be some confusion whether such draft
patches
should go into the regular commit fest or the draft commit
fest, and
then also when they should move between them.
Draft CF patches with “Needs Review” are looking for feedback
from others or otherwise aid in development for a patch that
isn’t ready to be committed even if said review turns up
nothing or is otherwise fully resolved. Patches in Drafts are
never marked Ready to Commit, they get moved to Open first.
It will be nice if people spend time providing
reviews/feedback to patches in Drafts when requested.
It’s purely the author’s judgement on the readiness of the
patch, whether absent our policy they would mark it ready to
commit or not. If they believe it is it should be moved to
open, if no, it should remain in drafts. This is mostly like
what happens today but with a clear delineation between
reviews to help and reviews to approve commit-ability.
Otherwise, it’s a place where author patches can sit without
having to be bumped to the next cf every other month and where
an author patch can be ignored by everyone else not authoring it.
I don't know about this. This could become an ongoing source of
confusion, without any clear benefit. Either the draft and the
"real" commitfest are going to be indistinguishable, because they
are just two places to look for stuff to review in various phases
of maturity. Or the draft commitfest is just not going to get any
attention, which will be annoying for those who put things there
hoping to get attention.
Yes, more experienced people have to want to help people who can’t
just get a patch ready to commit on their own. As opposed to only
reviewing things they expect to perform the formality of the review to
make it ready to commit. The tooling help distinguish those cases if
used properly. But people have to choose to do the things it
encourages/enables.
If one performs a review of a non-draft and it isn’t close to ready,
encourage the author to move it into drafts as part of a teaching
moment of how their expectations of done-ness and yours differ.
We aren’t going to get 100% accuracy here but it’s is better
information that intends to address the complaint that what we had was
not fit for purpose because the information it provided was
insufficient. Tags get even more granular while this provides
high-level draft/non-draft delineation where drafts don’t have to keep
being shuffled around. Review Need still needs review no matter where
it is. That doesn’t change.
+1
--
Vik Fearing
