On Apr 9, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> The problem with the whole thing is that you're asking the person doing
> the "returned" marking to guess whether the patch will be resubmitted in
> a future CF.
>
> The right workflow here, IMO, is that a patch should be marked returned or
> rejected, full stop; and then when/if the author submits a new version for
> a future CF, there should be a way *at that time* to re-link the email
> thread into that future CF.
Yeah, or a way to reactivate the old entry at that time. Any kind of routine carryover to the next CF is going to lead
toan accumulation of dead patches with live CF entries; it should require some action to re-enter a previously returned
patchin the latest CF.
...Robert
