From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ProcessUtility_hook |
Date: | 2009-12-01 02:24:59 |
Message-ID: | 16534.1259634299@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> So, if someone writes a patch, and it is reviewed, and the patch author
> updates the patch and replies, it still should be reviewed again before
> being committed?
Well, that's for the reviewer to say --- if the update satisfies his
concerns, he should sign off on it, if not not. I've tried to avoid
pre-empting that process.
> Also, we are two weeks into the commit fest and we have more unapplied
> patches than applied ones.
Yup. Lots of unfinished reviews out there. Robert spent a good deal
of effort in the last two fests trying to light fires under reviewers;
do you want to take up that cudgel? I think wholesale commits of things
that haven't finished review is mostly going to send a signal that the
review process doesn't matter, which is *not* the signal I think we
should send.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-12-01 02:32:19 | Re: ProcessUtility_hook |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-01 02:06:25 | Re: ProcessUtility_hook |