| From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, Eric Davies <eric(at)barrodale(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL/MED estimated time of arrival? |
| Date: | 2010-11-22 03:14:51 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTina+9-FOZ3p2DTx1EfCginYeNj5b-ptLxi8O-tO@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:16, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> To have a chance of getting a significant portion
> of this into PostgreSQL 9.1, it really needs to be broken up into
> INDEPENDENTLY COMMITTABLE SUB-PATCHES.
Did we discuss about syntax-only patch is not acceptable because
it makes the head broken state at the previous commit-fest?
I think that's why the patch becomes so large.
So, our guideline to submit a large patch would be:
* Split patch into commitable sub-patches (2000 lines each),
* But submit a series of patches at once.
Am I understanding correctly?
--
Itagaki Takahiro
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-22 04:00:24 | Re: SQL/MED estimated time of arrival? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-22 03:11:43 | Re: security hooks on object creation |