On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 3/3/13 4:31 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> I'd like to add a new CF status, "Pending Discussion". This status >> would be used for patches which have long discussions regarding syntax >> or difficult functionality on this list which must be resolved before >> commit. >> > I'd like this. It is frustrating to grab a patch that needs review and reading all of the discussion, only to find it is still being actively discussed. If I remembered all of that discussion and so could come back in two weeks and pick up where I left off, that wouldn't be so bad. But in two weeks, I have to read the whole discussion again. On the other hand, there is always the possibility that if I was not following the discussion in real time out of curiosity, then maybe it isn't the right patch for me to be reviewing. > > I made a similar suggestion a few years ago. Robert thought it was a > workflow problem because it removed any notion of who was responsible for > the next action. Once something goes into "Discussion", it's easy to fall > into a state where everyone is waiting for someone else. > > I thought it was a useful idea anyway, but I could see his point. This > should probably move to "Waiting on Author" when it happens, presuming that > the person who wrote something is motivated to see the change committed. > (If they weren't, why did they write it?) > I too can see his point, but I think we should just declare it to be the author's ultimate responsibility to decide when it is ready to be reviewed, and then write a summary of the discussion and change the status. (Not that someone else could not make that decision if they felt moved to do so...). I don't think that the words "waiting on author" has to be part of the status' name in order for us to know whose responsibility it is. Cheers, Jeff
