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

Re: ProcessUtility_hook

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2009-12-01 02:32:19
Subject: Re: ProcessUtility_hook
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-12-01 02:06:25
Subject: Re: ProcessUtility_hook

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