From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Michael Paquier' <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Commit fest 2017-11 |
Date: | 2017-11-30 05:29:14 |
Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F842825@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com]
> All patches not marked as ready for committer have been classified, by either
> being marked as returned with feedback or moved to the next CF.
> I may have made some mistakes of course, hence if you feel that the status
> of your patch is not appropriate, feel free to update it as you think is
> best-suited.
Thanks a lot for your tough work. This should have been much harder than I can imagine...
> improvement. One thing that could be improved in my opinion is that patch
> authors should try more to move a patch to a following commit fest once
> the end gets close...This would leverage slightly the load of work for the
> CFM.
I'm sorry about this. I should have moved "Statement-level rollback" to the next CF. Now I tried that, successfully marking it as "waiting on author", but the patch doesn't move to the next CF when I then change the status as "Move to next CF." How can I move the patch to next CF?
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-11-30 05:36:58 | Re: Allowing SSL connection of v11 client to v10 server with SCRAM channel binding |
Previous Message | Beena Emerson | 2017-11-30 05:16:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning |