On 09/22/2014 08:23 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Who decides if the patch is adequately reviewed?
>
> Author, Committer or Reviewer? In CF, that is comparatively clear
> that once Reviewer is satisfied, he marks the patch as
> Ready For Committer and then Committer picks up and if he is satisfied
> with the review and quality of patch, then he commits the patch or if the
> Committer himself is reviewer than in many cases once he is satisfied,
> he commits it.
Well, outside of the CF process, it becomes up to the committer to get
adequate review of the patch so it can be committed, and "adequate
review" in one of those cases generally means "another committer who
didn't work on the patch previously". It's also standard for our
committers, up to and including Tom Lane, to say things like "I'm going
to commit this in 24 hours if nobody objects further."
> Now in this case, if I understand correctly the story is not
> so straightforward. It seems to me Robert as the Reviewer was not
> completely satisfied where as Stephen as the Committer was pretty
> much okay with the patch so he went ahead and commits it.
That's certainly what it looks like to me, and on that basis Stephen
should have held back the patch until he got reviewer OK.
Fortunately, since we use Git and not CVS, reverting patches isn't the
trauma it once was.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
