Itagaki Takahiro <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[email protected]> 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 that there's consensus
>> for it.
> Should we have "Needs Discussion" phase before "Needs Review" ?
> Reviews, including me, think patches with needs-review status are
> worthwhile. In contrast, contributers often register their patches
> to CF without discussions just because of no response; they cannot
> find whether no response is silent approval or not.
Hm, I guess the question would be: what is the condition for getting
out of that state? It's clear who is supposed to move a patch out of
'Needs Review', 'Waiting for Author', or 'Ready for Committer'
respectively. I don't know who's got the authority to decide that
something has or has not achieved community consensus.
Right at the moment we handle this sort of problem in a very informal
way, but if it's going to become part of the commitfest state for a
patch I think we need to be a bit less informal.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
