Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Well, the historical set of topics varies from CommitFest to
> CommitFest, by design. There are some that recur pretty regularly, of
> course, like Security, Performance, and Miscellaneous. But not every
> CF will have a section for ECPG or Refactoring, for example. In one
> CF, we may have six ECPG patches, so ECPG gets its own topic; in
> another CF, 1 ECPG patch + 2 libpq patches + 1 psql patch get merged
> together under a section called Interfaces. This generally makes it
> easier to group things in ways that are useful in practice than a
> fixed list of topics, so I'm in favor of keeping it that way.
If it's intentional that the topic for the same patch might vary
depending on what else is submitted in the same CF, then I think that
asking submitters to select topics is the wrong thing from the get-go.
The patches should be uncategorized initially, and then someone like the
CF manager should group them into topics after-the-fact.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Marios Vodas||Date: 2010-09-27 15:13:12|
|Subject: Re: gist access methods parameter types|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-09-27 15:06:38|
|Subject: Re: Improving prep_buildtree used in VPATH builds|