Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun ene 16 17:48:41 -0300 2012:
> Putting submitters aside, I have to say based on teaching people how to
> use the CF stuff on Thursday night that the process of submitting a
> review of a patch is VERY unintuitive, or in the words of one reviewer
> "astonishingly arcane". Summing up:
>
> 1. Log into CF. Claim the patch by editing it.
>
> 2. Write a review and email it to pgsql-hackers.
>
> 3. Dig the messageID out of your sent mail.
>
> 4. Add a comment to the patch, type "Review" with the messageID, and
> ideally a short summary comment of the review.
>
> 5. Edit the patch to change its status as well as to remove yourself as
> reviewer if you plan to do no further review.
>
> There are so many things wrong with this workflow I wouldn't know where
> to start.
Other than having to figure out Message-Ids, which most MUAs seem to
hide as much as possible, is there anything here of substance? I mean,
if getting a message-id from Gmail is all that complicated, please
complain to Google.
I mean, is email arcane? Surely not. Are summary lines arcane? Give
me a break. So the only real complain point here is message-id, which
normally people don't care about and don't even know they exist. So
they have to learn about it.
Let's keep in mind that pgsql-hackers email is our preferred form of
communication.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
