Re: new CommitFest states

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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 continuing the review process and the discussion confirms the
> approach as viable.
>
>
> In that case, the patch would be in "Needs review" the whole time.
> "Discussing review" is intended to be a "I'm done but not sure of the next
> step for this patch" state the reviewer can use.  In the situation you
> described, the patch would never have left "Needs review".  I just made that
> more clear by documenting that it's shorthand for "discussing review
> results".
>
> I also added a transition path for a similar situation though, where the
> discussion concludes the reviewer didn't do the right thing in the first
> place (even though they thought they did) and they return to reviewing after
> realizing what was missing.

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.

(Also, Waiting for review is actually the wrong name for the state
it's trying to talk about.)

...Robert