Re: CF app feature request

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 3:59 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Dec-23, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:52 AM Michael Paquier > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 03:30:38PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > On 2018-Nov-20, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Certainly not

Re: CF app feature request

On 2018-Dec-23, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:52 AM Michael Paquier > wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 03:30:38PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > On 2018-Nov-20, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Certainly not higher than having the dropdown for entry author/reviewer > > > be so

Re: CF app feature request

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 7:19 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > I'm trying to figure out where this thread left off :) My understanding > of > > the consensus is we don't actually want/need a change in the app, but are > > instead OK with the admin just handling it a somewhat ugly

Re: CF app feature request

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:52 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 03:30:38PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-Nov-20, Tom Lane wrote: > > Certainly not higher than having the dropdown for entry author/reviewer > > be sorted alphabetically ... *wink* *wink* > > More *wink*

Re: CF app feature request

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 03:30:38PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Nov-20, Tom Lane wrote: > Certainly not higher than having the dropdown for entry author/reviewer > be sorted alphabetically ... *wink* *wink* More *wink* *wink* -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: CF app feature request

On 2018-Nov-20, Tom Lane wrote: > I think there is a use-case for "Withdrawn", it's more polite than > "Rejected" ;-). But it's not a very high-priority request. Certainly not higher than having the dropdown for entry author/reviewer be sorted alphabetically ... *wink* *wink* -- Álvaro Herrera

Re: CF app feature request

Magnus Hagander writes: > I'm trying to figure out where this thread left off :) My understanding of > the consensus is we don't actually want/need a change in the app, but are > instead OK with the admin just handling it a somewhat ugly way in the few > cases where it's necessary? The original c

Re: CF app feature request

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 1:28 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:15:36PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > Just to make sure, if a duplicated entry will be removed, the patch > itself > > will stay or not? I'm asking, because both entries have the same patch > > referenced, and th

Re: CF app feature request

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:15:36PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > Just to make sure, if a duplicated entry will be removed, the patch itself > will stay or not? I'm asking, because both entries have the same patch > referenced, and the admin form says that one of the related items, that > would be r

Re: CF app feature request

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 10:24, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > Bonjour Michaël, > > >> Because the same patch submission is already counted? It is a rare > >> occurence, so just a "Withdrawn" state could be enough, and slightly false > >> CF stats are no big deal. > > > > Or as we are dealing with duplic

Re: CF app feature request

Bonjour Michaël, Because the same patch submission is already counted? It is a rare occurence, so just a "Withdrawn" state could be enough, and slightly false CF stats are no big deal. Or as we are dealing with duplicated entries, perhaps we could just delete the entry not wanted, which seems

Re: CF app feature request

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:17:51AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: > Because the same patch submission is already counted? It is a rare > occurence, so just a "Withdrawn" state could be enough, and slightly false > CF stats are no big deal. Or as we are dealing with duplicated entries, perhaps we coul

Re: CF app feature request

I don't know enough about the app internals to comment. But it probably shouldn't appear in the stats, or else should have its own category in the stats. Or that's closer to "Rejected by the author himself"? "Withdrawn" sounds like a good term for that, we surely don't want to simply remove

Re: CF app feature request

On 11/01/2018 08:40 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 05:56:24PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 11/01/2018 05:50 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Are you thinking basically another status that's "Withdrawn", but keeping it, or actually removing the records completely? I don't kn

Re: CF app feature request

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 05:56:24PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 11/01/2018 05:50 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Are you thinking basically another status that's "Withdrawn", but >> keeping it, or actually removing the records completely? > > I don't know enough about the app internals to comme

Re: CF app feature request

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 11/01/2018 05:50 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Are you thinking basically another status that's "Withdrawn", but >> keeping it, or actually removing the records completely? > I don't know enough about the app internals to comment. But it probably > shouldn't appear i

Re: CF app feature request

On 11/01/2018 05:50 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:44 PM Andrew Dunstan > wrote: Yesterday Fabien and I submitted the same item to the Commitfest (1859 and 1860). Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any way for on

Re: CF app feature request

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:44 PM Andrew Dunstan < andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Yesterday Fabien and I submitted the same item to the Commitfest (1859 > and 1860). Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any way for one of > these to be withdrawn. "Rejected" and "Returned with Feedback"