|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Subject:||Re: "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Apr 9, 2015 2:20 AM, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
"Moved" is really only applicable, I think, for cases where we punt a
patch to the next CF for lack of time.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Kouhei Kaigai||2015-04-09 12:22:15||Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API)|
|Previous Message||Andres Freund||2015-04-09 11:33:08||Re: NOT NULL markings for BKI columns|