Re: We're getting close to the end of 2020-01 CF

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: We're getting close to the end of 2020-01 CF
Date: 2020-01-22 05:09:39
Message-ID: 20200122050939.GE174860@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 05:20:17PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Yeah, you're right returning them with feedback seems more appropriate,
> given the long inactivity. Plus, the CF app apparently does not allow
> moving WoA patches to the next CF anyway.

FWIW, I tend to take a base of two weeks as a sensible period of
time as that's half the CF period when I do the classification job.

> Those are the patches that have been set as WoA before this CF, and have
> not been updated since. It's quite possible the state is stale for some
> of those patches, although I've tried to check if there were any
> messages on the list.

You need to be careful about bug fixes, as these are things that we
don't want to lose track of. Another thing that I noticed in the past
is that some patches are registered as bug fixes, but they actually
implement a new feature. So there can be tricky cases.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2020-01-22 05:10:40 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-01-22 05:03:41 Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries