On 04/08/2015 03:28 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com
<mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net
<mailto:pete...@gmx.net>> wrote:
> On 4/7/15 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I tried to mark the "UPDATE SET (*)" patch as "returned with
feedback",
>> but the CF app informed me that if I did that the patch would
>> automatically be moved to the next commitfest. That seems
completely
>> stupid. There is no need to reconsider it unless a new version
of the
>> patch is forthcoming (which there may or may not ever be, but
that's
>> beside the point for now). When and if the author does submit
a new
>> patch, that would be the time to include it in the next
commitfest, no?
>
> I noticed that as well and have avoided closing some patches
because of it.
Several people, including me, have complained about this before. I
hope that Magnus will fix it soon.
Yeah, I think my doing so is more or less down to one of the hardest
problems in IT - naming things. As in, what should we call that level.
Right now we have "Committed", "Returned with feedback" and "Rejected"
as the statuses that indicates something is "done for this
commitfest". I do think we want to add another one of those to
differentiate between these two states -- we could flag it as just
"returned with feedback" and not move it, but if we do that we loose
the ability to do statistics on it for example, and in order to figure
out what happened you have to go look at the history details int he
box at the bottom.
So i think we need a specific label for it. Any suggestions for what
it should be?
If we're moving it to the next commitfest, maybe "Delayed with
feedback". "Returned with feedback" should be putting the ball back in
the submitter's court for further action.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
