On 16 July 2012 01:16, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> We are now at the end of the originally scheduled one-month window for
> the June commitfest. While the numbers look fairly bad:
> Needs Review: 17, Waiting on Author: 10, Ready for Committer: 3, Committed: 29, Returned with Feedback: 12, Rejected: 5. Total: 76.
> it's not quite a complete disaster, because almost all of the "needs
> review" patches did actually get some review and/or had new versions
> posted during the fest. We did not get them to the point of being
> committable, but we did make progress. I only see about three patches
> that seem to have received no attention whatsoever.
> At this point we could move the open items to the September fest and
> call this one good, or we could keep trying to close things out.
> Personally I'd like to do the former, because we really need to spend
> some effort on closing out the various open issues for 9.2, and the
> commitfest seems to have sucked up all the available time of those who
> might've been fixing those issues over the past month.
Sounds fine to me.
I've been unavailable for much of this CF, so my intention is to
continue with my parts of it. Meaning the reviews I was scheduled to
do won't be put off until Sept. But first, I'll review the 9.2 open
items list again.
That's a personal point, not trying to suggest everybody else should do that.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2012-07-17 15:18:19|
|Subject: Re: Covering Indexes|
|Previous:||From: Samuel Vogel||Date: 2012-07-17 09:34:34|
|Subject: Re: b-tree index search algorithms|