| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: damage control mode |
| Date: | 2010-01-09 00:48:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1262998121.20530.0.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On fre, 2010-01-08 at 10:02 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Now, I'll second Greg Smith and Tom here, in that I think we need to
> run
> the last commitfest as usual, knowing that the outcome of the
> commitfest
> for any given patch is not "it made it" but "we reviewed it". It's
> still
> right for the project to bump a patch on resources ground rather than
> on
> technical merit, at the end of the commitfest.
+1, leave everything as is.
The commitfest is a tool for people to track what is going on, not a
tool to tell people what to do.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-09 01:01:35 | We need to rethink relation cache entry rebuild |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-01-08 23:58:27 | Re: Testing plperl<->plperlu interaction |