Alvaro Herrera <> writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> That said, we can certainly reconsider that. Would we always copy the value
>> over? Even if it was, say, rejected? (so it would be copied to the new CF
>> but still marked rejected) Or is there a subset of behaviors you're looking
>> for?

> I think the states "Ready for Committer" and "Needs Review" ought to be
> kept in the new CF.


> I'm unclear on what to do about "Returned with Feedback" and "Waiting on
> Author"; my first instinct is that if a patch is in those states, then
> it shouldn't be possible to move to the next CF.  On the other hand, if
> we force the state to change to "Needs Review" before moving it, we
> would lose the information of what state it was closed with.  So perhaps
> for any patch in those two states, the state in the next CF should be
> "needs review" too.

+1 for not moving such patches to the new CF until the author does
something --- at which point they'd change to "Needs Review" state.
But we should not change them into that state without author input.
And I don't see the value of having them in a new CF until the
author does something.

> I am even more unclear on "Rejected".  My instinct says we should refuse
> a move-to-next-cf for such patches.

Right.  Rejected is dead, it shouldn't propagate forward.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to