On April 8, 2015 9:28:50 PM GMT+02:00, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut <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?
I'm not convinced we really need a version that closes and moves a entry. But if we indeed want it we can just name it
"moved".
---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
