Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
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
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I didn't really get any feedback on my proposal to add a new
Discussing review state
It seems like a good idea to me; it better models the reality.
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_a_CommitFest
It seems to me that a patch could move from
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
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
Robert Haas wrote:
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.
I did throw some disclaimers in the notes about this
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
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
I didn't really get any feedback on my proposal to add a new Discussing
review state to help out the reviewers and CF manager. To show how
adding it helps track the common flow of patches through the system, I
turned the whole CF into a big state machine and marked how the
transitions should
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes:
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
Robert Haas wrote:
On a related note, Greg Smith requested a state called Discussing
Review, which would logically follow Needs Review and precede
Waiting for Author/Ready for Committer/Returned with Feedback.
I'm not altogether convinced of the value of that state, but I'm not
altogether
