Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2014-07-02 16:47:16 -0400, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
> >
> > If we expect that the author is going to update the patch, the right
> > state to use is "Waiting on author".
>
> Quite so. That's how I understand it, and what I've been doing. But what
> if we really *don't* expect the author to update the patch, but they do
> it anyway? That's the only case I was referring to.
>
> If the right thing to do is to open an entry in the next CF (as you said
> earlier in your mail), that's all right with me.
As Tom says I think we should be open to the possibility that we made a
mistake and that it should return to "needs review", when reasonable.
For example if the author takes long to update and we're in the final
steps of closing the commitfest, I don't think we need to feel forced to
re-examine the patch in the same commitfest.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
