On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> wrote:
> On 2/13/15 8:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:23 PM, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> As the patch stands there's still a couple of FIXMEs in there, so there's >>> still a bit of work to do yet. >>> Comments are welcome >>> >>> >> Hm, if there is still work to do, we may as well mark this patch as >> rejected as-is, also because it stands in this state for a couple of >> months. >> > > I didn't bring this up before, but I'm pretty sure this patch should be > marked "returned with feedback". From what I've understood, "rejected" > means "we don't want this thing, not in this form or any other". That > doesn't seem to be the case for this patch, nor for a few others marked > "rejected" in the currently in-progress commit fest. > In the new CF app, marking a patch as "returned this feedback" adds it automatically to the next commit fest. And note that it is actually what I did for now to move on to the next CF in the doubt: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/3/27/ But if nothing is done, we should as well mark it as "rejected". Not based on the fact that it is rejected based on its content, but to not bloat the CF app with entries that have no activity for months. -- Michael
