Correct Fabien. I have already removed myself as a reviewer. Thanks. - robins | mobile
On 20 Sep. 2017 5:13 pm, "Fabien COELHO" <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > > Hello Robins, > > I was able to test the functionality (which seemed to work fine) and fed in >> my comment to assist anyone else reviewing this patch (and intentionally >> let it's state as 'Needs Review'). >> >> While trying to provide my feedback, on hindsight I should have been more >> detailed about what I didn't test. Being my first review, I didn't >> understand that not checking a box meant 'failure'. For e.g. I read the >> sgml changes, which felt okay but didn't click 'Passed' because my env >> wasn't setup properly. >> > > Hmmm, ISTM that it was enough. The feature is psql specific, so the fact > that it works against a 9.6 server is both expected and fine. So ISTM that > your test "passed". > > Just running "make check" would run the non regression test, which is > basically what you tested online, against the compiled version. > > Probably you should have a little look at the source code and doc as well. > > I've set this back to 'Needs Review' because clearly needs it. >> > > Hmmm. > > If you do a review, which I think you have done, then you have done it:-) > > If you consider that your test was not a review and you do not intend to > provide one, then thanks for the feedback anyway, and maybe you should > consider removing yourself from the "Reviewer" column, otherwise nobody > will provide a review. > > -- > Fabien. >
