On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I tried to mark the "UPDATE SET (*)" patch as "returned with feedback", but the CF app informed me that if I did that the patch would automatically be moved to the next commitfest. That seems completely stupid. There is no need to reconsider it unless a new version of the patch is forthcoming (which there may or may not ever be, but that's beside the point for now). When and if the author does submit a new patch, that would be the time to include it in the next commitfest, no?
I ended up marking it "rejected" instead, but that seems a bit harsh.
While that is one possibility, given that it shows in the next CF as "Waiting on Author", and lack of any other obvious place to put the CF entry while it is in limbo, I'm not sure there is a problem here - though I'm sure I and others can envision additional capabilities to make tracking "committer" vs "author" responsibility easier.
I could see adding a "Moved to ToDo" status that denotes that we got tired of "Waiting on Author" and decided to move the item to the ToDo list. The same could be used to simply indicate that while the idea is solid the current implementation is lacking. Quite a few ToDo items fall into that category - and saying the patch is rejected while the concept is accepted is valid feedback. Whether we want to distinguish between "Abandoned - moved to ToDo" and "Unacceptable Implementation - moved to ToDo" is something to consider once the idea of using the ToDo as a limbo area, in addition to the next CF, is agreed upon.
Put another way, the logical conclusion to Tom's sentiment is to simply remove everything "Waiting on Author" since there is never any guarantee that a response will be forthcoming and then, if one is, the entry can be added back into the current CF at that time. Leaving open items in the prior CS doesn't seem to make sense and I do not know enough about the application to determine how feasible it is to be a closed item from a previous CFs back to life.