On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 02:41:52PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 3/31/22 07:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:11 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> ... Would it be feasible or reasonable
> >>> to drop reviewers if they've not commented in the thread in X amount
> >>> of time?
> >
> >> In theory, this might cause someone who made a valuable contribution
> >> to the discussion to not get credited in the commit message. But it
> >> probably wouldn't in practice, because I at least always construct the
> >> list of reviewers from the thread, not the CF app, since that tends to
> >> be wildly inaccurate in both directions. So maybe it's fine? Not sure.
> >
> > Hmm, I tend to believe what's in the CF app, so maybe I'm dropping the
> > ball on review credits :-(. But there are various ways we could implement
> > this. One way would be a nagbot that sends private email along the lines
> > of "you haven't commented on patch X in Y months. Please remove your name
> > from the list of reviewers if you don't intend to review it any more."
>
> It seems there wasn't a definitive decision here. Are there any
> objections to more aggressive pruning of the Reviewers entries? So
> committers would need to go through the thread for full attribution,
> moving forward.
>
> If there are no objections, I'll start doing that during next Friday's
> patch sweep.
I think it's fine to update the cfapp fields to reflect reality...
..but a couple updates that I just saw seem wrong. The reviewers field was
nullified, even though the patches haven't been updated in a long time.
There's nothing new to review. All this has done is lost information that
someone else (me, in this case) went to the bother of adding.
Also, cfapp has a page for "patches where you are the author", but the cfbot
doesn't, and I think people probably look at cfbot more than the cfapp itself.
So being marked as a reviewer is not very visible even to oneself.
But, one of the cfbot patches I sent to Thomas would change that. Each user's
page would *also* show patches where they're a reviewer ("Needs review -
Reviewer"). That maybe provides an incentive to 1) help maintain the patch; or
otherwise 2) remove oneself.
Also, TBH, this seems to create a lot of busywork. I'd prefer to see someone
pick one of the patches that hasn't seen a review in 6 (or 16) months, and send
out their most critical review and recommend it be closed, or send an updated
patch with their own fixes as an 0099 patch.
--
Justin