On 09/22/2014 08:23 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Who decides if the patch is adequately reviewed? > > Author, Committer or Reviewer? In CF, that is comparatively clear > that once Reviewer is satisfied, he marks the patch as > Ready For Committer and then Committer picks up and if he is satisfied > with the review and quality of patch, then he commits the patch or if the > Committer himself is reviewer than in many cases once he is satisfied, > he commits it.
Well, outside of the CF process, it becomes up to the committer to get adequate review of the patch so it can be committed, and "adequate review" in one of those cases generally means "another committer who didn't work on the patch previously". It's also standard for our committers, up to and including Tom Lane, to say things like "I'm going to commit this in 24 hours if nobody objects further." > Now in this case, if I understand correctly the story is not > so straightforward. It seems to me Robert as the Reviewer was not > completely satisfied where as Stephen as the Committer was pretty > much okay with the patch so he went ahead and commits it. That's certainly what it looks like to me, and on that basis Stephen should have held back the patch until he got reviewer OK. Fortunately, since we use Git and not CVS, reverting patches isn't the trauma it once was. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
