On Tue, 2025-05-20 at 17:06 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > f no committer intends to pick it up and commit it, I think the proper > > action would be to step up and reject the patch set, not complain about the > > insistence of the author. > > Are you saying I should not complain until we have officially rejected > the patch set? If we officially reject it, the patch author would no > longer post it?
No, you are free to complain, just as Pavel is free to keep his patch set from rotting. What I am trying to say is that rejecting the patch set is the most effective way to complain.
The current state is that Pavel keeps the patch set alive, and occasionally people review it or parts of it. But no committer is accepting or rejecting it, so the patch set remains in limbo. This annoys you, and it is certainly not a happy experience for the author. Rejection is not nice, but at least it would make it easier for Pavel to move on and spend his energy elsewhere.
Rejection is not nice, but it can be, and if it will be, I hope, there will be more cleaner
status if we want this feature or not, and if possibly want this feature, what we expect.
This feature can be designed differently in respect to some priorities. But without known
priorities, any patch, proposal can end in the same state.
