Re: [PATCH v2 28/27] tests: run tests omitted by PREPARE_FOR_MAIN_BRANCH

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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.