On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > 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 find it an annoyance, but can't get too worked up over it. > I mean, > if getting a message-id from Gmail is all that complicated, please > complain to Google. But after digging the message-id out of gmail and entering it into the commitfest app, the resulting link is broken because the email has not yet shown up in the archives. So now I have to wonder if I did something wrong, and keep coming back every few hours to see if will start working. > > I mean, is email arcane? Surely not. Are summary lines arcane? The way you have to set them is pretty arcane. Again, I can't get too worked over it, but if it were made simpler I'd be happier. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
