On mån, 2009-12-07 at 17:14 +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote: > 2009/12/7 Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp>: > > > > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > >> It was written and submitted by one person who did not bother to ask > >> first whether anyone else thought it was worthwhile. So its presence > >> on the CF list should not be taken as evidence that there's consensus > >> for it. > > > > Should we have "Needs Discussion" phase before "Needs Review" ? > > Reviews, including me, think patches with needs-review status are > > worthwhile. In contrast, contributers often register their patches > > to CF without discussions just because of no response; they cannot > > find whether no response is silent approval or not. > > +1. Sometimes a reviewer waits for the consensus in the community when > someone else waits for review (, because it is marked as "Needs > Review").
Yes, I would have had use for this myself a couple of times. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
