Kevin Grittner wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:4B260712020000250002D3EF@gw.wicourts.gov" type="cite"><blockquote
type="cite"><prewrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_a_CommitFest">http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_a_CommitFest</a>
</pre></blockquote><prewrap="">
It seems to me that a patch could move from "Discussing review" to
"Needs review" -- if the reviewer decided to discuss the approach
before continuing the review process and the discussion confirms the
approach as viable. </pre></blockquote> In that case, the patch would be in "Needs review" the whole time. "Discussing
review"is intended to be a "I'm done but not sure of the next step for this patch" state the reviewer can use. In the
situationyou described, the patch would never have left "Needs review". I just made that more clear by documenting
thatit's shorthand for "discussing review results".<br /><br /> I also added a transition path for a similar situation
though,where the discussion concludes the reviewer didn't do the right thing in the first place (even though they
thoughtthey did) and they return to reviewing after realizing what was missing.<br /><br /><pre class="moz-signature"
cols="72">--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:greg@2ndQuadrant.com">greg@2ndQuadrant.com</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"href="http://www.2ndQuadrant.com">www.2ndQuadrant.com</a>
</pre>
