| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CommitFest status/management |
| Date: | 2009-12-01 14:42:28 |
| Message-ID: | 244.1259678548@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> If we went with Bruce's interpretation, we could have a "committer"
> field that only appears when the status is "Claimed by Committer" or
> "Committed" and the contents of that field could be displayed in
> parentheses in the status column, like this: Claimed by Committer (Tom
> Lane).
> If we went with Andrew's interpretation, we would need a completely
> separate column, because there wouldn't be any logical relationship
> between the status field and the committer field.
> Any other votes? Tom?
I'm happy with Andrew's interpretation --- I just want a separate text
field for inserting a committer's name. I don't want any magic behavior
of that field.
> On a possibly related note, I am not totally sure that we want to
> enshrine the principle that committers categorically won't touch
> patches that are not yet marked Ready for Committer.
No, but I think that should be the default assumption once a reviewer
has been assigned. If the reviewer doesn't totally fall down on the
job, he/she should be allowed to finish reviewing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-12-01 14:43:18 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-12-01 14:40:53 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |