On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 14:35, Aleksander Alekseev
<aleksander@timescale.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 11:37, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> > > There are a number of patches carried over from the PG16 development
> > > cycle that have been in "Waiting on author" for several months. I will
> > > aggressively prune those after the start of this commitfest if there
> > > hasn't been any author activity by then.
> >
> > [1 patch]
>
> This was the one that I could name off the top of my head.
>
> [5 more patches]
>
> I will apply corresponding status changes if there will be no objections.
On Mon, 4 Sept 2023 at [various], Aleksander Alekseev
<aleksander@timescale.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > [various patches]
>
> A consensus was reached [1] to mark this patch as RwF for now. There
> are many patches to be reviewed and this one doesn't seem to be in the
> best shape, so we have to prioritise. Please feel free re-submitting
> the patch for the next commitfest.
I'm a bit confused about your use of "consensus". True, there was no
objection, but it looks like no patch author or reviewer was informed
(cc-ed or directly referenced) that the patch was being discussed
before achieving this "consensus", and the "consensus" was reached
within 4 days, of which 2 weekend, in a thread that has (until now)
involved only you and Peter E.
Usually, you'd expect discussion about a patch to happen on the
patch's thread before any action is taken (or at least a mention on
that thread), but quite clearly that hasn't happened here.
Are patch authors expected to follow any and all discussion on threads
with "Commitfest" in the title?
If so, shouldn't the relevant wiki pages be updated, and/or the
-hackers community be updated by mail in a new thread about these
policy changes?
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
Neon (https://neon.tech)
[0] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch