On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't think there should be a transition from Returned with Feedback
>> back to Waiting for review. Granted we might allow that occasionally
>> as an exceptional case, but normally Returned with Feedback is a final
>> state.
>
> I did throw some disclaimers in the notes about this particular subject at
> the bottom of the table. The main reason I put that in there is that
> sometimes a reviewer or even the CF manager (I did this myself once this
> time) will mark something "Returned with feedback", thinking there's no way
> the issues pointed out can be addressed right now. And then, a day or two
> later, in comes a patch that does just that; surprise! Since it seems to
> happen anyway, and I'd prefer not to get in the position where people are
> screaming "you threw me out with 'RWF' unfairly", I thought it was better to
> accept that possibility so long as the whole thing is tightly bounded as far
> as how much time the author has to do it.
Hmm, I'm not aware of any actual cases of this. I'm usually pretty
conservative about jumping to RWF unless there's been lag or we're
near the end of the CommitFest, so it doesn't come up.
>> (Also, Waiting for review is actually the wrong name for the state
>> it's trying to talk about.)
>
> Uh, what are you talking about here?
Well, we have Needs Review and Waiting on Author, but not Waiting for
Review. I assume you mean Needs Review.
...Robert