Maintaining "needswork" section of "What's (not) cooking"

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

I am still experimenting with my own workflow with these parts.

With more people on the list sending patches recently, I still have enough mental bandwidth to reject the initial rounds with comments/suggestions for improvements, but I do not think it is realistic to expect me to keep track of all of their progress on re-submission of improvements anymore (I used to prod people privately asking how much they are making progress after not hearing from people who received review comments).

It is a large loss for all of us when people do not come back with updated patches after receiving review comments. Lost are their good idea based on the real world needs. Time other people have volunteered to review their initial submissions are also wasted when that happens.

I however do not intend to lower the patch acceptance standards. It is not a workable approach to accept many new features implemented in a substandard way or designed incoherently, expecting they will eventually be cleaned up in-tree. Nobody will clean anything up after it is merged, and when we give something to the end users, it becomes harder to change its behaviour.

If a few people can volunteer to maintain a list that looks like the above (not-quite) quoted ones, we may be able to give people more incentive to keep polishing their patches in response to the reviews they received. Other people can also offer help in topics they are interested in, and we may see more topics through their completion as the result.

Thoughts? .