On 2015-02-13 17:06:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> wrote:
>
> > On 2/13/15 8:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:23 PM, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> As the patch stands there's still a couple of FIXMEs in there, so there's
> >>> still a bit of work to do yet.
> >>> Comments are welcome
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Hm, if there is still work to do, we may as well mark this patch as
> >> rejected as-is, also because it stands in this state for a couple of
> >> months.
> >>
> >
> > I didn't bring this up before, but I'm pretty sure this patch should be
> > marked "returned with feedback". From what I've understood, "rejected"
> > means "we don't want this thing, not in this form or any other". That
> > doesn't seem to be the case for this patch, nor for a few others marked
> > "rejected" in the currently in-progress commit fest.
> >
>
> In the new CF app, marking a patch as "returned this feedback" adds it
> automatically to the next commit fest. And note that it is actually what I
> did for now to move on to the next CF in the doubt:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/3/27/
> But if nothing is done, we should as well mark it as "rejected". Not based
> on the fact that it is rejected based on its content, but to not bloat the
> CF app with entries that have no activity for months.
Then the CF app needs to be fixed. Marking patches as rejected on these
grounds is a bad idea.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
