Re: Suggested new CF status: "Pending Discussion"

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Suggested new CF status: "Pending Discussion"
Date: 2013-03-04 02:05:31
Message-ID: 5134016B.6000906@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 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?)

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2013-03-04 02:25:57 Re: Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul
Previous Message Greg Smith 2013-03-04 01:55:34 Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]