On 04/08/2015 03:28 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com
> <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net
> <mailto:peter_e@gmx.net>> wrote:
> > On 4/7/15 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I tried to mark the "UPDATE SET (*)" patch as "returned with
> feedback",
> >> but the CF app informed me that if I did that the patch would
> >> automatically be moved to the next commitfest. That seems
> completely
> >> stupid. There is no need to reconsider it unless a new version
> of the
> >> patch is forthcoming (which there may or may not ever be, but
> that's
> >> beside the point for now). When and if the author does submit
> a new
> >> patch, that would be the time to include it in the next
> commitfest, no?
> >
> > I noticed that as well and have avoided closing some patches
> because of it.
>
> Several people, including me, have complained about this before. I
> hope that Magnus will fix it soon.
>
>
>
> Yeah, I think my doing so is more or less down to one of the hardest
> problems in IT - naming things. As in, what should we call that level.
>
> Right now we have "Committed", "Returned with feedback" and "Rejected"
> as the statuses that indicates something is "done for this
> commitfest". I do think we want to add another one of those to
> differentiate between these two states -- we could flag it as just
> "returned with feedback" and not move it, but if we do that we loose
> the ability to do statistics on it for example, and in order to figure
> out what happened you have to go look at the history details int he
> box at the bottom.
>
> So i think we need a specific label for it. Any suggestions for what
> it should be?
>
>
If we're moving it to the next commitfest, maybe "Delayed with
feedback". "Returned with feedback" should be putting the ball back in
the submitter's court for further action.
cheers
andrew
