Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > At 2014-07-02 16:47:16 -0400, alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: > > > > If we expect that the author is going to update the patch, the right > > state to use is "Waiting on author". > > Quite so. That's how I understand it, and what I've been doing. But what > if we really *don't* expect the author to update the patch, but they do > it anyway? That's the only case I was referring to. > > If the right thing to do is to open an entry in the next CF (as you said > earlier in your mail), that's all right with me.
As Tom says I think we should be open to the possibility that we made a mistake and that it should return to "needs review", when reasonable. For example if the author takes long to update and we're in the final steps of closing the commitfest, I don't think we need to feel forced to re-examine the patch in the same commitfest. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
