On 03/03/2018 02:37 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 3/2/18 8:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2018-03-03 02:00:46 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>> That is somewhat misleading, I think. You're right the last version was >>> submitted on 2018-01-19, but the next review arrived on 2018-01-31, i.e. >>> right at the end of the CF. So it's not like the patch was sitting there >>> with unresolved issues. Based on that review the patch was marked as RWF >>> and thus not moved to 2018-03 automatically. >> >> I don't see how this changes anything. > > I agree that things could be clearer, and Andres has produced a great > document that we can build on. The old one had gotten a bit stale. > > However, I think it's pretty obvious that a CF entry should be > accompanied with a patch. It sounds like the timing was awkward but > you still had 28 days to produce a new patch. >
Based on internal discussion I'm not so sure about the "pretty obvious" part. It certainly wasn't that obvious to me, otherwise I'd submit the revised patch earlier - hindsight is 20/20. > I also notice that you submitted 7 patches in this CF but are > reviewing zero. > I've volunteered to review a couple of patches at the FOSDEM Developer Meeting - I thought Stephen was entering that into the CF app, not sure where it got lost. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services