Re: new CommitFest states

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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 is a final
>>> state.
>>>
>> The main reason I put that in there is that
>> sometimes a reviewer or even the CF manager (I did this myself once this
>> time) will mark something "Returned with feedback", thinking there's no way
>> the issues pointed out can be addressed right now. And then, a day or two
>> later, in comes a patch that does just that; surprise!
> Hmm, I'm not aware of any actual cases of this. I'm usually pretty
> conservative about jumping to RWF unless there's been lag or we're
> near the end of the CommitFest, so it doesn't come up.
>

I've concluded that the times this happened was just me being too
aggressive here to close some patches out after getting behind, and I
removed the path you objected to out of the page as not to encourage
that behavior.

I think that http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_a_CommitFest makes
for a pretty reasonable and quite detailed set of guidelines now for the
whole process, which means we've successfully gotten "what Robert did to
make things work well" documented fully. All it's missing is for the
"Discussing review" state to be an official one. I could undo things
back to where it's not listed, but I do think it matches what we really
do better and might as well be recognized as such.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com