On 06 Sep 2001 14:18:09 +0200, Gunnar Rønning wrote:
>* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>| Of these #3 seems like the solution that will emerge in the long term
>| anyway; but do we have candidate patch-meisters now?
>| Comments, better ideas, nominations, volunteers?
>I would like to nominate Barry Lind as he has been doing great work for a
I second that, if Barry volunteers of course.
>Maybe 2-3 of the most active JDBC developers should be given
>commit access, so we're not dependent on one person to merge in patches.
I'm not sure if I qualify, since I haven't been around very
long, but I'll be glad to help out if volunteers are needed.
I'm under the impression that JDBC receives more ad hoc patches
from relative newcomers than the backend does. Therefore, I
propose to follow a peer review procedure for applying patches
1) Every patch must be reviewable. It should be a clean diff and
it must contain a clear description of the problem that's being
solved, the reason for certain changes, JDBC compliance etc.
2) Every non-trivial patch should receive a positive
recommendation from at least one person of a team of certified
reviewers before it is applied. The review process (e.g. Q&A
between reviewer and developer, approve/reject) occurs on the
This is already happening with a lot of patches, but I think it
would be good to turn this practice into an official and
René Pijlman <rene(at)lab(dot)applinet(dot)nl>
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Marko Kreen||Date: 2001-09-06 17:39:49|
|Subject: Re: Bytea string operator support|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-09-06 16:30:48|
|Subject: Re: Patch for Improved Syntax Error Reporting|
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-09-06 17:11:36|
|Subject: Re: error - NOTICE: current transaction...MORE DETAIL...|
|Previous:||From: Vince Vielhaber||Date: 2001-09-06 17:01:08|
|Subject: Re: Re: What needs to be done?|