Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> Perhaps I should start to more aggressively drop topics from `seen` >> that are not sufficiently reviewed? The guiding principle ought to >> be "unreviewed patches are not worth applying", but I have a feeling >> that we have become more and more lax over time due to shortage of >> quality reviews. I dunno. > > FWIW I think you do a wonderful job of keeping the patch series in `seen`. > I wish we could keep the CI build passing a bit more, but I'd rather have > the branches that are in flight in one place, so that it is easy e.g. to > find out whether `git diff next..seen -- t/t9902\*` is empty (to determine > whether working on that script would cause conflicts right now). I have to disagree. There are a few topics, perhaps more than a few, that is age old in Git timescale nobody has bothered to ask the list why we still have it in 'seen' [*1*]. It may be a good thing to pick up as many potentially interesting new topics as possible and to merge them to 'seen' while resolving possible conflicts with other topics in flight. I am willing to continue doing so. But I doubt that a series lingering in 'seen' that has not been touched for more than say four weeks has much chance of gaining any new interest to push it forward. Perhaps we need a policy to discard a topic whose author timestamp is 8 weeks or older and not in 'next', without preventing those who care about the topic from resurrecting it in support, or something along that line. [Footnote] *1* The question can be asked in two ways. "Shouldn't it go 'next' already? I've read it over, here is the review and the thread shows a clear concensus that it is a good idea" is one happy outcome (even though that would indicate the maintainer doing a poor job). Alternatively, "Shouldn't it be discarded? Nobody seemed interested back then and now we have X instead, so it is not necessary." is also a possible happy outcome.
