| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest II CLosed |
| Date: | 2013-10-21 15:10:09 |
| Message-ID: | 29265.1382368209@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> On 21.10.2013 16:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> What is the alternative?
> If no-one really cares enough about a patch to review it, mark it as
> "rejected, because no-one but the patch author cares". Harsh, but that's
> effectively what pushing to the next commitfest means anyway.
Well, that could be the problem, but it's also possible that no one could
get to it in the alloted CF timeframe. Maybe the best-qualified reviewers
were on vacation, or maybe there were just too many patches. I could see
bouncing a patch on this basis if it doesn't get touched for, say, two
consecutive CFs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-21 15:11:32 | Re: Commitfest II CLosed |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-21 15:06:02 | Re: logical changeset generation v6.4 |