On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun ene 16 17:48:41 -0300 2012:
>> Putting submitters aside, I have to say based on teaching people how to
>> use the CF stuff on Thursday night that the process of submitting a
>> review of a patch is VERY unintuitive, or in the words of one reviewer
>> "astonishingly arcane". Summing up:
>> 1. Log into CF. Claim the patch by editing it.
>> 2. Write a review and email it to pgsql-hackers.
>> 3. Dig the messageID out of your sent mail.
>> 4. Add a comment to the patch, type "Review" with the messageID, and
>> ideally a short summary comment of the review.
>> 5. Edit the patch to change its status as well as to remove yourself as
>> reviewer if you plan to do no further review.
>> There are so many things wrong with this workflow I wouldn't know where
>> to start.
> Other than having to figure out Message-Ids, which most MUAs seem to
> hide as much as possible, is there anything here of substance?
I find it an annoyance, but can't get too worked up over it.
> I mean,
> if getting a message-id from Gmail is all that complicated, please
> complain to Google.
But after digging the message-id out of gmail and entering it into the
commitfest app, the resulting link is broken because the email has not
yet shown up in the archives. So now I have to wonder if I did
something wrong, and keep coming back every few hours to see if will
> I mean, is email arcane? Surely not. Are summary lines arcane?
The way you have to set them is pretty arcane. Again, I can't get too
worked over it, but if it were made simpler I'd be happier.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2012-01-16 21:38:15|
|Subject: Re: Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2012-01-16 21:30:51|
|Subject: Re: SKIP LOCKED DATA|