Re: YAML Was: CommitFest status/management - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: YAML Was: CommitFest status/management
Date
Msg-id 4239.1260199201@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: YAML Was: CommitFest status/management  (Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>)
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joshua Tolley
Date:
Subject: Re: Need a mentor, and a project.
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: tsearch parser inefficiency if text includes urls or emails - new version