Re: Audit of logout
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Audit of logout |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20140702212005.GC6390@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Audit of logout (Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > At 2014-07-02 16:47:16 -0400, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com wrote: > > > > If we expect that the author is going to update the patch, the right > > state to use is "Waiting on author". > > Quite so. That's how I understand it, and what I've been doing. But what > if we really *don't* expect the author to update the patch, but they do > it anyway? That's the only case I was referring to. > > If the right thing to do is to open an entry in the next CF (as you said > earlier in your mail), that's all right with me. As Tom says I think we should be open to the possibility that we made a mistake and that it should return to "needs review", when reasonable. For example if the author takes long to update and we're in the final steps of closing the commitfest, I don't think we need to feel forced to re-examine the patch in the same commitfest. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: