From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Commitfest Bug (was: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates) |
Date: | 2016-03-02 12:34:15 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQ7_Oupp-jnshF8hS17F9NMdipkVUD7oPpe_TUkmZgRwg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> Needs Review -> Needs Review
> Waiting on Author -> Refuse moving
> Ready for committer -> Ready for Committer
> Committed -> refuse moving
> Moved to next cf -> refuse moving (if it's already set like this, it would
> probably be a bug)
> Returned with feedback -> Refuse moving
> Which basically means we only move things that are in needs review or ready
> for committer state, and that we never actually change the status of a patch
> in the moving.
>
> Is that a correct summary?
Yes, thanks for the summary. It looks like this is what people would
expect based on what I read here.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-03-02 13:41:56 | Re: Commitfest Bug (was: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates) |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-03-02 12:19:27 | Re: Commitfest Bug (was: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates) |