Re: Patch to support SEMI and ANTI join removal

<div dir="ltr"><br /><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Andres
Freund<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andres@2ndquadrant.com" target="_blank">andres@2ndquadrant.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div
class="HOEnZb"><divclass="h5">On 2015-02-13 17:06:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:<br /> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at
4:57PM, Marko Tiikkaja <<a href="mailto:marko@joh.to">marko@joh.to</a>> wrote:<br /> ><br /> > > On
2/13/158:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:<br /> > ><br /> > >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:23 PM, David
Rowley<<a href="mailto:dgrowleyml@gmail.com">dgrowleyml@gmail.com</a>><br /> > >> wrote:<br /> >
>><br/> > >>> As the patch stands there's still a couple of FIXMEs in there, so there's<br /> >
>>>still a bit of work to do yet.<br /> > >>> Comments are welcome<br /> > >>><br />
>>>><br /> > >> Hm, if there is still work to do, we may as well mark this patch as<br /> >
>>rejected as-is, also because it stands in this state for a couple of<br /> > >> months.<br /> >
>><br/> > ><br /> > > I didn't bring this up before, but I'm pretty sure this patch should be<br />
>> marked "returned with feedback".  From what I've understood, "rejected"<br /> > > means "we don't want
thisthing, not in this form or any other".  That<br /> > > doesn't seem to be the case for this patch, nor for a
fewothers marked<br /> > > "rejected" in the currently in-progress commit fest.<br /> > ><br /> ><br />
>In the new CF app, marking a patch as "returned this feedback" adds it<br /> > automatically to the next commit
fest.And note that it is actually what I<br /> > did for now to move on to the next CF in the doubt:<br /> > <a
href="https://commitfest.postgresql.org/3/27/"target="_blank">https://commitfest.postgresql.org/3/27/</a><br /> >
Butif nothing is done, we should as well mark it as "rejected". Not based<br /> > on the fact that it is rejected
basedon its content, but to not bloat the<br /> > CF app with entries that have no activity for months.<br /><br
/></div></div>Thenthe CF app needs to be fixed. Marking patches as rejected on these<br /> grounds is a bad idea.<br
/></blockquote></div><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra">Yup, definitely the term is incorrect. We need "Returned with
feedbackbut please do not add it to the next CF dear CF app".<br />-- <br /><div class="gmail_signature">Michael<br
/></div></div></div>