Re: "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app

On Thursday, April 9, 2015, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us');>> wrote:
>
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','magnus(at)hagander(dot)net');>> writes:
>> > On Apr 9, 2015 2:20 AM, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com');>> wrote:
>> >> +1.
>>
>> > Is that at +1 for naming it moved, or for not having it? :-)
>>
>> > I can definitely go with moved. Buy I would like to keep it - the reason
>> > for having it in the first place is to make the history of the patch
>> follow
>> > along when it goes to the next cf. If we don't have the move option, I
>> > think it's likely that we'll be back to the same patch having multiple
>> > completely unrelated entries in different cfs.
>>
>> The problem with the whole thing is that you're asking the person doing
>> the "returned" marking to guess whether the patch will be resubmitted in
>> a future CF.
>>
>> The right workflow here, IMO, is that a patch should be marked returned or
>> rejected, full stop; and then when/if the author submits a new version for
>> a future CF, there should be a way *at that time* to re-link the email
>> thread into that future CF.
>>
>
> If we just link the email thread, that would mean we loose all those
> precious annotations we just added support for. Is that really what you
> meant? We also loose all history of a patch, and can't see that a previous
> version existed in a previous commitfest, without manually checking each
> and every one. But if that's a history we don't *want*, that's of course
> doable, but it seems wrong to me?
>
> I'm not necessarily saying that what we have now is right, but just giving
> up on the history completely doesn't seem like a very good workflow to me.
>
> We could always tell those people to "go back and find your old patch and
> re-open it", but in fairness, are people likely to actually do that?
>
>
> "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.
>
>
Can we create a "fake" CF time period into which all of these "waiting on
author" entries can be placed and readily browsed/found instead of leaving
them in whatever CF they happened to stall in?

David J.