Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

David G. Johnston wrote: > Can we create a "fake" CF time period into which all of these "waiting on > author" entries can be placed and readily browsed/found instead of leaving > them in whatever CF they happened to stall in? This seems a good idea to me -- not a "fake CF", but a page listing al

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On Thursday, April 9, 2015, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane > wrote: > >> Magnus Hagander > > writes: >> > On Apr 9, 2015 2:20 AM, "Robert Haas" > > wrote: >> >> +1. >> >> > Is that at +1 for naming it moved, or for not having it? :-) >> >> > I can definitely go

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On 04/09/2015 09:09 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: "Moved" is really only applicable, I think, for cases where we punt a patch to the next CF for lack of time. Well, that's basically what "returned with feedback" is now, so I guess that one should just be renamed in that case. And we a

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > The right workflow here, IMO, is that a patch should be marked > > returned or rejected, full stop; and then when/if the author submits > > a new version for a future CF, there should be a way *at that time* > > to re-li

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On 2015-04-09 15:09:55 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > If we just link the email thread, that would mean we loose all those > precious annotations we just added support for. Is that really what you > meant? We also loose all history of a patch, and can't see that a previous > version existed in a p

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Apr 9, 2015 2:20 AM, "Robert Haas" wrote: > >> +1. > > > Is that at +1 for naming it moved, or for not having it? :-) > > > I can definitely go with moved. Buy I would like to keep it - the reason > > for having it

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Apr 9, 2015 2:20 AM, "Robert Haas" wrote: >> +1. > Is that at +1 for naming it moved, or for not having it? :-) > I can definitely go with moved. Buy I would like to keep it - the reason > for having it in the first place is to make the history of the patch follow >

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On Apr 9, 2015 2:20 AM, "Robert Haas" wrote: > > On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > I'm not convinced we really need a version that closes and moves a entry. But if we indeed want it we can just name it "moved". > > +1. Is that at +1 for naming it moved, or for not having it? :

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> I'm not convinced we really need a version that closes and moves a entry. >> But if we indeed want it we can just name it "moved". > > +1. +1. Sounds like a good idea. It would be good to ge

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On Apr 9, 2015, at 1:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I'm not convinced we really need a version that closes and moves a entry. But > if we indeed want it we can just name it "moved". +1. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subs

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I tried to mark the "UPDATE SET (*)" patch as "returned with feedback", > but the CF app informed me that if I did that the patch would > automatically be moved to the next commitfest. That seems completely > stupid. There is no need to reconsi

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On 04/08/2015 03:28 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut mailto:pete...@gmx.net>> wrote: > On 4/7/15 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I tried to mark the "UPDATE SET

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On April 8, 2015 9:28:50 PM GMT+02:00, Magnus Hagander wrote: >On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Robert Haas >wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut >wrote: >> > On 4/7/15 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> I tried to mark the "UPDATE SET (*)" patch as "returned with >feedback",

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 4/7/15 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I tried to mark the "UPDATE SET (*)" patch as "returned with feedback", > >> but the CF app informed me that if I did that the patch would > >>

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 4/7/15 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I tried to mark the "UPDATE SET (*)" patch as "returned with feedback", >>> but the CF app informed me that if I did that the patch would >>> aut

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/7/15 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I tried to mark the "UPDATE SET (*)" patch as "returned with feedback", >> but the CF app informed me that if I did that the patch would >> automatically be moved to the next commitfest. That seems com

[HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

I tried to mark the "UPDATE SET (*)" patch as "returned with feedback", but the CF app informed me that if I did that the patch would automatically be moved to the next commitfest. That seems completely stupid. There is no need to reconsider it unless a new version of the patch is forthcoming (wh

Re: [HACKERS] "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On 4/7/15 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I tried to mark the "UPDATE SET (*)" patch as "returned with feedback", > but the CF app informed me that if I did that the patch would > automatically be moved to the next commitfest. That seems completely > stupid. There is no need to reconsider it unless a