Re: YAML Was: CommitFest status/management
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-12-07T10:48:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On mån, 2009-12-07 at 17:14 +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote: > 2009/12/7 Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>: > > > > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > >> It was written and submitted by one person who did not bother to ask > >> first whether anyone else thought it was worthwhile. So its presence > >> on the CF list should not be taken as evidence that there's consensus > >> for it. > > > > Should we have "Needs Discussion" phase before "Needs Review" ? > > Reviews, including me, think patches with needs-review status are > > worthwhile. In contrast, contributers often register their patches > > to CF without discussions just because of no response; they cannot > > find whether no response is silent approval or not. > > +1. Sometimes a reviewer waits for the consensus in the community when > someone else waits for review (, because it is marked as "Needs > Review"). Yes, I would have had use for this myself a couple of times.