| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2022-01 Commitfest |
| Date: | 2022-02-06 06:57:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20220206065745.fxpjmdub3w3yxuhu@jrouhaud |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 03:49:50PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:00:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Agreed, we're not here to cause make-work for submitters. RWF is
> > appropriate if the patch has been in Waiting On Author for awhile
> > and doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but otherwise we should
> > just punt it to the next CF.
>
> FWIW, I just apply a two-week rule here, as of half the commit fest
> period to let people the time to react:
> - If a patch has been waiting on author since the 15th of January,
> mark it as RwF.
> - If it has been left as waiting on author after the 15th of January,
> move it to the next CF.
Thanks. Note that I was planning to do that on Monday, as it didn't seemed
rushed enough to spend time on it during the weekend.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2022-02-06 06:58:06 | Re: libpq async duplicate error results |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-02-06 06:52:08 | Re: Ensure that STDERR is empty during connect_ok |