| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] CF app: add "Returned: Needs more interest" |
| Date: | 2022-08-03 19:59:05 |
| Message-ID: | 3111627.1659556745@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> I agree very much with that - just am doubtful that "lacks interest" is a good
> way of dealing with it, unless we just want to treat it as a nicer sounding
> "rejected".
I think there is a difference. "Lacks interest" suggests that there
is a path forward for the patch, namely (as Jacob has mentioned
repeatedly) doing some sort of consensus-building that it's worth
pursuing. The author may or may not have the interest/skills to do
that, but it's possible that it could happen. "Rejected" says "don't
bother pursuing this, it's a bad idea". Neither of these seems the
same as RWF, which I think we mostly understand to mean "this patch
has technical problems that can probably be fixed".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-08-03 20:14:37 | Re: Smoothing the subtrans performance catastrophe |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-08-03 19:46:45 | Re: [PATCH] CF app: add "Returned: Needs more interest" |