On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2015-02-13 17:06:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> wrote: > > > > > On 2/13/15 8:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:23 PM, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> As the patch stands there's still a couple of FIXMEs in there, so > there's > > >>> still a bit of work to do yet. > > >>> Comments are welcome > > >>> > > >>> > > >> Hm, if there is still work to do, we may as well mark this patch as > > >> rejected as-is, also because it stands in this state for a couple of > > >> months. > > >> > > > > > > I didn't bring this up before, but I'm pretty sure this patch should be > > > marked "returned with feedback". From what I've understood, "rejected" > > > means "we don't want this thing, not in this form or any other". That > > > doesn't seem to be the case for this patch, nor for a few others marked > > > "rejected" in the currently in-progress commit fest. > > > > > > > In the new CF app, marking a patch as "returned this feedback" adds it > > automatically to the next commit fest. And note that it is actually what > I > > did for now to move on to the next CF in the doubt: > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/3/27/ > > But if nothing is done, we should as well mark it as "rejected". Not > based > > on the fact that it is rejected based on its content, but to not bloat > the > > CF app with entries that have no activity for months. > > Then the CF app needs to be fixed. Marking patches as rejected on these > grounds is a bad idea. > Yup, definitely the term is incorrect. We need "Returned with feedback but please do not add it to the next CF dear CF app". -- Michael
