On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Kevin Grittner wrote: > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_a_CommitFest > > > > It seems to me that a patch could move from "Discussing review" to > "Needs review" -- if the reviewer decided to discuss the approach > before continuing the review process and the discussion confirms the > approach as viable. > > > In that case, the patch would be in "Needs review" the whole time. > "Discussing review" is intended to be a "I'm done but not sure of the next > step for this patch" state the reviewer can use. In the situation you > described, the patch would never have left "Needs review". I just made that > more clear by documenting that it's shorthand for "discussing review > results". > > I also added a transition path for a similar situation though, where the > discussion concludes the reviewer didn't do the right thing in the first > place (even though they thought they did) and they return to reviewing after > realizing what was missing.
I don't think there should be a transition from Returned with Feedback back to Waiting for review. Granted we might allow that occasionally as an exceptional case, but normally Returned with Feedback is a final state. (Also, Waiting for review is actually the wrong name for the state it's trying to talk about.) ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
