"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
 
> With only ten days to go, in order to leave time for committers to
> do their thing, we need to be wrapping up the remaining patches. 
> I think we look pretty good.  Of the remaining six patches, two
> are Work in Progress, so are not expected to go to a committer;
> three involve a committer, so I figure they can decide when and if
> it's time to return or move them, which just leaves one which is
> down to tweaking docs.
 
How embarrassing -- I miscounted.  It appears I counted Peter's WiP
patch in two categories and missed counting the "unlimited
parameters for xslt_process" in the above paragraph.  (An omission
which jumped out at me when reading this morning's posts.)  Mike
Fowler's latest post says "neither the existing code or the patched
code appear able to evaluate the parameters."  Is it time to mark
this "Returned with Feedback" and hope for a new patch in the next
CF?
 
-Kevin

In response to

• CommitFest 2010-07 week three progress report at 2010-08-05 18:42:54 from Kevin Grittner

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Marcelo Mas	Date: 2010-08-06 14:39:28
	Subject: BUG #5607: memmory leak in ecpg
Previous:	From: Fujii Masao	Date: 2010-08-06 14:31:03
	Subject: Re: postgres 9.0 crash when bringing up hot standby

pgsql-rrreviewers by date

Next:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2010-08-06 19:55:05
	Subject: Re: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function
Previous:	From: Mike Fowler	Date: 2010-08-06 08:04:15
	Subject: Re: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function