Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Patch queue concern

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,"PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch queue concern
Date: 2007-03-28 23:30:06
Message-ID: 1175124607.4386.485.camel@silverbirch.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 17:37 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> I realize it isn't fair that committers are behind on patches, while we
> are expecting submitters to make the deadline, but there are far fewer
> committers than submitters, and there was never a promise to commit
> everything before feature freeze.

I'm expecting to review patches after freeze and I'm much more free to
do that now than I have been previously. It seems important we have a
tiered review process so that some of the more obvious flaws can be
driven out of patches as early as possible. 

If we can set expectations that every developer has to contribute review
time, committer or not, then we'll all be better off. That need not take
away authority from committers, nor give it to reviewers.

Anybody and everybody is certainly welcome to comment on my own patches.


My feeling is we should have more regular sync points where the patch
queue is emptied and everything committed or rejected. That way
rejection is less of a problem and we will all have more opportunity to
build upon each others good work.

-- 
  Simon Riggs             
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2007-03-29 00:53:58
Subject: problems with plan invalidation
Previous:From: Joris DobbelsteenDate: 2007-03-28 23:23:13
Subject: Re: Guarenteeing complex referencial integrity through custom triggers

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group