> The reviewing that happened during this CommitFest did not happen on
> the basis of who was interested in which patches. There was a bit of
> that, but for the most part people reviewed the patches that they were
> asked to review. I assumed (am I the only one?) that the REASON why
> we were not asked to review SE-PostgreSQL or Hot Standby is because
> the committers were planning to do that themselves due to the
> complexity of the patches.
Actually, I did assign someone to do a build and specification review.
But yes, I expected that the code review would *have* to be done by a
long-term committer. I pretty much assume that of anything over 300 lines.
The idea behind having new reviewers take on all the small patches, was,
of course, to give the main committers more time with patches like
SEPostgres. It worked with other stuff (like Windowing and CTE).
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-01-27 05:38:17|
|Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-01-27 05:25:56|
|Subject: Re: SE-PostgreSQL Updated Revision (r1460)|