| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remaining 2017-03 CF entries |
| Date: | 2017-04-07 19:33:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoboJxsiW0a1zUEXRrVj-e-thp=XQfLAsfAjhmDk7TXNaA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-04-07 16:28:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> > > - can't move to next fest because it's waiting-on-author, which doesn't
>> > > allow that. Doesn't strike me as a useful restriction.
>> >
>> > I agree that that CF app restriction makes little sense.
>>
>> What the restriction means is that if a patch is in waiting-on-author,
>> the proper "close" action is to return-with-feedback. There is no point
>> in moving the patch to the next commitfest if there is no further patch
>> version.
>
> That's true if the patch has been in that state for a while, but if you
> find some relatively minor issues, and then move it soon after, it seems
> to make sense to keep it open in the next CF.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't do that. Of course, we do not live in
an ideal world...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-07 19:40:26 | Re: [sqlsmith] Unpinning error in parallel worker |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-04-07 19:30:52 | Re: Remaining 2017-03 CF entries |