Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2026, #12)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:

>> Perhaps I should re-evaluate the "What's Cooking" report and eject
>> other topics from 'next' as well.  There are indeed topics I did not
>> personally read, relying instead on impressions from busy exchanges
>> (including earlier iterations read by others X-<).
>> 
>> Are there other topics in 'next' that do not deserve to be there
>> yet?
>
> There aren't any others that I'm aware of, but I've not looked at most 
> of them so that probably does not mean much.
>
>> I cannot, of course, afford to be the sole serious reviewer and
>> merge only those I have carefully read through, given that there are
>> only 24 hours in a day and I have other obligations.  So either our
>> quality criteria must suffer, like this episode showed us, or more
>> topics must be ignored.
>
> Yes, we could really do with more reviewers

Perhaps the sensible thing for me to do is to stop taking any new
topics into 'seen', even if I've spotted them, until I see somebody
give them a real review.

Otherwise, it becomes too tempting for me to jump in, give them a
superficial read after seeing them linger in the "What's Cooking"
draft in the "Needs review" state for too long, and, believing I've
seen enough, mark them for 'next'.  If I don't queue a patch that
nobody seems to have read carefully, I won't succumb to such
temptation.