On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:01 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
> ha ha! Alas, I'm completely overcommitted at this point. Been having a hard time making time for PGXN. I've been tracking the extension stuff closely, though, as you can imagine.
It's a common problem, and of course none of us are in a position to
dictate how other people spend their time. But the issue on the table
is whether we want PostgreSQL 9.1 to be released in 2011. If yes,
then without making any statements about what any particular person
has to or must do, we collectively need to step it up a notch or two.
> Looking at the patches without reviewers anyway, frankly none look like the sorts of things I have the expertise to test in any but the most superficial way. Are there more that should have the reviewer removed? If there were one I could give a couple of hours to and speak with some knowledge, I could fix up some time next week.
I just sent a note on some that seem like they could use more looking
at, but there may be other ones too. Now is not the time to hold back
because you think someone else might be working on it. Most of the
time, the fact that a patch has a reviewer means that they either
intended to or actually did review it at some point in time, but not
that they are necessarily working on it right this minute, and
certainly not that other input isn't welcome. This is especially true
towards the end of the CommitFest or when the thread hasn't had
anything new posted to it for several days.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-02-09 19:36:25|
|Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14|
|Previous:||From: Bernd Helmle||Date: 2011-02-09 19:32:07|
|Subject: Re: patches that could use additional reviewers|