| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: "rejected" vs "returned with feedback" in new CF app |
| Date: | 2015-04-09 13:17:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20150409131721.GB32335@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-04-09 15:09:55 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 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?
It'd be better if we kept them, but it's not *that* important imo. But
if the (documented) workflow would be to go to the old cf and click the
'move to next CF' button that'd not be a problem anyway.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-04-09 13:17:40 | Re: Row security violation error is misleading |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-04-09 13:13:54 | Re: pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables |