| From: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Commitfest 2022-07] Begins Now |
| Date: | 2022-07-18 20:34:52 |
| Message-ID: | 0382c448-0997-034f-5289-50ab55625d88@timescale.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/18/22 12:32, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm not following - I'm talking about the patch author needing a while to
> address the higher level feedback given by a reviewer. The author might put
> out a couple new versions, which each might still benefit from review. In that
> - pretty common imo - situation I don't think it's useful for the reviewer
> that provided the higher level feedback to be removed from the patch.
Okay, I think I get it now. Thanks.
There's still something off in that case that I can't quite
articulate... Is it your intent to use Reviewer as a signal that "I'll
come back to this eventually"? As a signal to other prospective
reviewers that you're handling the patch? How should a CFM move things
forward when they come to a patch that's been responded to by the author
but the sole Reviewer has been silent?
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-07-18 20:40:15 | Re: doc: Clarify Routines and Extension Membership |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-18 20:34:50 | Re: [PATCH] Introduce array_shuffle() and array_sample() |