Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun ene 16 17:48:41 -0300 2012: > Putting submitters aside, I have to say based on teaching people how to > use the CF stuff on Thursday night that the process of submitting a > review of a patch is VERY unintuitive, or in the words of one reviewer > "astonishingly arcane". Summing up: > > 1. Log into CF. Claim the patch by editing it. > > 2. Write a review and email it to pgsql-hackers. > > 3. Dig the messageID out of your sent mail. > > 4. Add a comment to the patch, type "Review" with the messageID, and > ideally a short summary comment of the review. > > 5. Edit the patch to change its status as well as to remove yourself as > reviewer if you plan to do no further review. > > There are so many things wrong with this workflow I wouldn't know where > to start.
Other than having to figure out Message-Ids, which most MUAs seem to hide as much as possible, is there anything here of substance? I mean, if getting a message-id from Gmail is all that complicated, please complain to Google. I mean, is email arcane? Surely not. Are summary lines arcane? Give me a break. So the only real complain point here is message-id, which normally people don't care about and don't even know they exist. So they have to learn about it. Let's keep in mind that pgsql-hackers email is our preferred form of communication. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
