On 4 March 2013 18:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Except that the implication of "waiting on author" is that, if there's
>>> no updates in a couple weeks, we bounce it. And the author doesn't
>>> necessarily control a bikeshed
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Is that true of all commitfests, or only the last one in a cycle? If the
> former, I think the existence of the "waiting on author" category belies
> this point.
The original point of "Waiting on Author" was that a patch might need
minor adjus
On Monday, March 4, 2013, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Josh Berkus >
> wrote:
> >> 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
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 01:59:31PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> Except that the implication of "waiting on author" is that, if there's
> >> no updates in a couple weeks, we bounce it. And the author doesn't
> >> necessar
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Except that the implication of "waiting on author" is that, if there's
>> no updates in a couple weeks, we bounce it. And the author doesn't
>> necessarily control a bikeshedding discussion about syntax, for example.
>
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Greg Smith 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 res
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> 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 were
> 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?)
Except that the implicati
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 made a similar suggestion a few years
Folks,
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. Examples include SELECT INTO STRICT and Matviews WIP.
Currently these pa
10 matches
Mail list logo
