On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Greg Smith
<greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 3/3/13 4:31 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
I'd like to add a new CF status, "Pending Discussion". This status
would be used for patches which have long discussions regarding syntax
or difficult functionality on this list which must be resolved before
commit.
I'd like this. It is frustrating to grab a patch that needs review and reading all of the discussion, only to find it is still being actively discussed. If I remembered all of that discussion and so could come back in two weeks and pick up where I left off, that wouldn't be so bad. But in two weeks, I have to read the whole discussion again.
On the other hand, there is always the possibility that if I was not following the discussion in real time out of curiosity, then maybe it isn't the right patch for me to be reviewing.
I made a similar suggestion a few years ago. Robert thought it was a workflow problem because it removed any notion of who was responsible for the next action. Once something goes into "Discussion", it's easy to fall into a state where everyone is waiting for someone else.
I thought it was a useful idea anyway, but I could see his point. This should probably move to "Waiting on Author" when it happens, presuming that the person who wrote something is motivated to see the change committed. (If they weren't, why did they write it?)
I too can see his point, but I think we should just declare it to be the author's ultimate responsibility to decide when it is ready to be reviewed, and then write a summary of the discussion and change the status. (Not that someone else could not make that decision if they felt moved to do so...). I don't think that the words "waiting on author" has to be part of the status' name in order for us to know whose responsibility it is.
Cheers,
Jeff
