On 9.12.2012 22:41, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Tomas Vondra <t...@fuzzy.cz> wrote: >> >> IMHO many of the patches that are currently marked as "needs review" and >> have no reviewers, were actually reviewed or are being discussed >> thoroughly on the list, but this information was not propagated to the >> CF page. > > Should active discussion on the hackers list prevent someone from > doing a review? I know I am reluctant to review a patch when it seems > it is still being actively redesigned/debated by others. > > Maybe a new status of "needs design consensus" would be useful.
IMHO introducing new statuses won't improve the state. Moreover reaching a design consensus is a natural part of the review process. I see those discussions as a part of the review process, so it's not that an active discussion means 'no review' (although the CF page states "needs review" or "no reviewer" for such patches). There's nothing wrong with doing yet another review for a patch, but in most cases I tend to agree with the points already raised in the discussion so it's not really productive. Thus I share the same reluctance to do more reviews for those actively discussed patches. My point is that some of the "idle patches" are actually quite active in the background, no one just updated the CF page. And I see many such patches moved forward over the last few days. Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
