Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
I don't think there should be a transition from Returned with Feedback
back to Waiting for review. Granted we might allow that occasionally
as an exceptional case, but normally Returned with Feed
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't think there should be a transition from Returned with Feedback
>> back to Waiting for review. Granted we might allow that occasionally
>> as an exceptional case, but normally Returned with Feedback is a final
>> s
Robert Haas wrote:
I don't think there should be a transition from Returned with Feedback
back to Waiting for review. Granted we might allow that occasionally
as an exceptional case, but normally Returned with Feedback is a final
state.
I did throw some disclaimers in the notes about this par
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_a_CommitFest
>
>
>
> It seems to me that a patch could move from "Discussing review" to
> "Needs review" -- if the reviewer decided to discuss the approach
> before continuing th
Kevin Grittner wrote:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_a_CommitFest
It seems to me that a patch could move from "Discussing review" to
"Needs review" -- if the reviewer decided to discuss the approach
before continuing the review process and the discussion confirms the
approach as
Greg Smith wrote:
> I didn't really get any feedback on my proposal to add a new
> "Discussing review" state
It seems like a good idea to me; it better models the reality.
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_a_CommitFest
It seems to me that a patch could move from "Discussing review"
I didn't really get any feedback on my proposal to add a new "Discussing
review" state to help out the reviewers and CF manager. To show how
adding it helps track the common flow of patches through the system, I
turned the whole CF into a big state machine and marked how the
transitions should
Robert Haas wrote:
On a related note, Greg Smith requested a state called "Discussing
Review", which would logically follow "Needs Review" and precede
"Waiting for Author"/"Ready for Committer"/"Returned with Feedback".
I'm not altogether convinced of the value of that state, but I'm not
altogeth
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Itagaki Takahiro writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It was written and submitted by one person who did not bother to ask
>>> first whether anyone else thought it was worthwhile. So its presence
>>> on the CF list should not be taken as evidence tha
