Re: Patch to support SEMI and ANTI join removal

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:

> On 2015-02-13 17:06:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/13/15 8:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:23 PM, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> As the patch stands there's still a couple of FIXMEs in there, so
> there's
> > >>> still a bit of work to do yet.
> > >>> Comments are welcome
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Hm, if there is still work to do, we may as well mark this patch as
> > >> rejected as-is, also because it stands in this state for a couple of
> > >> months.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I didn't bring this up before, but I'm pretty sure this patch should be
> > > marked "returned with feedback". From what I've understood, "rejected"
> > > means "we don't want this thing, not in this form or any other". That
> > > doesn't seem to be the case for this patch, nor for a few others marked
> > > "rejected" in the currently in-progress commit fest.
> > >
> >
> > In the new CF app, marking a patch as "returned this feedback" adds it
> > automatically to the next commit fest. And note that it is actually what
> I
> > did for now to move on to the next CF in the doubt:
> > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/3/27/
> > But if nothing is done, we should as well mark it as "rejected". Not
> based
> > on the fact that it is rejected based on its content, but to not bloat
> the
> > CF app with entries that have no activity for months.
>
> Then the CF app needs to be fixed. Marking patches as rejected on these
> grounds is a bad idea.
>

Yup, definitely the term is incorrect. We need "Returned with feedback but
please do not add it to the next CF dear CF app".
--
Michael