| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app |
| Date: | 2015-04-09 13:52:48 |
| Message-ID: | 55268430.7090404@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/09/2015 09:09 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
>
> "Moved" is really only applicable, I think, for cases where we punt a
> patch to the next CF for lack of time.
>
>
> Well, that's basically what "returned with feedback" is now, so I
> guess that one should just be renamed in that case. And we add a new
> "returned with feedback" that closes out the patch and doesn't move it
> anywhere. Which is pretty similar to the suggestion earlier in this
> thread except it also swaps the two names.
>
I think we should keep it, and see how it works in practice. I'd prefer
a name like "deferred" to "moved" - the latter is a workflow process
rather than a patch status, ISTM.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2015-04-09 13:56:00 | Re: SSL information view |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-04-09 13:41:36 | Re: "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app |