From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 8.3 pending patch queue |
Date: | 2007-01-08 10:30:14 |
Message-ID: | 45A21D36.2020809@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> All have been awaiting review for at least a month (though in one case
>> the latest version is quite recent). They probably ought to be on the
>> hold queue; all are ready to be reviewed for final
>> application/rejection.
>>
>> I'd hasten to add that none of those are mine. My patches have received
>> good attention, so I'm not complaining just completing admin.
>
> You might remember months ago that people were complaining I was pushing
> things into CVS too quickly, so while the patches are in my mailbox,
> they are not in the queue until I feel the community has the time to
> focus on it.
So, there's a queue of patches in your mailbox waiting to get to the
queue? A queue to the queue :). All the patches clearly need review, so
let's not rush them into the CVS, but it'd be nice to have them all in
one queue.
Ps. I agree with the later comments that the naming of the two patch
queues is a bit confusing. Having queues named after the release numbers
the patches are targeted for seems like a good idea.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-01-08 10:37:25 | Re: Mark/Restore and avoiding RandomAccess sorts |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-01-08 08:57:21 | Re: [HACKERS] SGML index build fix |