Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers