On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 13:39, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 7:11 AM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, I 100% agree with this. If a patch bitrots and no one cares enough
> > to rebase it once in a while, then sure - it's probably fine to mark it
> > RwF. But forcing all contributors to do a dance every 2 months just to
> > have a chance someone might take a look, seems ... not great.
>
> I don't think that clicking on a link that someone sends you that asks
> "hey, is this ready to be reviewed' qualifies as a dance.
If there's been any useful response to the patch since the last time
you pressed this button, then it might be okay. But it's definitely
not uncommon for items on the commitfest app to get no actual response
at all for half a year, i.e. multiple commits fests (except for the
odd request for a rebase that an author does within a week). I'd most
certainly get very annoyed if for those patches where it already seems
as if I'm screaming into the void I'd also be required to press a
button every two months, for it to even have a chance at receiving a
response.
> So I think the right interpretation of his comment is that
> managing the CommitFest has become about an order of magnitude more
> difficult than what it needs to be for the task to be done well.
+1
> > Long time ago there was a "rule" that people submitting patches are
> > expected to do reviews. Perhaps we should be more strict this.
>
> This sounds like it's just generating more manual work to add to a
> system that's already suffering from needing too much manual work. Who
> would keep track of how many reviews each person is doing, and how
> many patches they're submitting, and whether those reviews were
> actually any good, and what would they do about it?
+1