Re: YAML Was: CommitFest status/management
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: 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: 2009-12-07T15:20:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes: > 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. Hm, I guess the question would be: what is the condition for getting out of that state? It's clear who is supposed to move a patch out of 'Needs Review', 'Waiting for Author', or 'Ready for Committer' respectively. I don't know who's got the authority to decide that something has or has not achieved community consensus. Right at the moment we handle this sort of problem in a very informal way, but if it's going to become part of the commitfest state for a patch I think we need to be a bit less informal. regards, tom lane