On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 09:32:14PM +0200, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> I'll sketch a situation: There's a big patch that some non-committer
> submitted that has been sitting on the mailinglist for 6 months or
> more, only being reviewed by other non-committers, which the submitter
> quickly addresses. Then in the final commit fest it is finally
> reviewed by a committer, and they say it requires significant changes.
> Right now, the submitter can decide to quickly address those changes,
> and hope to keep the attention of this committer, to hopefully get it
> merged before the deadline after probably a few more back and forths.
> But this new rule would mean that those significant changes would be a
> reason not to put it in the upcoming release. Which I expect would
> first of all really feel like a slap in the face to the submitter,
> because it's not their fault that those changes were only requested in
> the last commit fest. This would then likely result in the submitter
> not following up quickly (why make time right at this moment, if
> you're suddenly going to have another full year), which would then
> cause the committer to lose context of the patch and thus interest in
> the patch. And then finally getting into the exact same situation next
> year in the final commit fest, when some other committer didn't agree
> with the redesign of the first one and request a new one pushing it
> another year.
Yes, I can see this happening. :-(
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Only you can decide what is important to you.