| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest 2023-03 starting tomorrow! |
| Date: | 2023-03-22 10:22:44 |
| Message-ID: | 385A9D60-10A1-47ED-A65C-53A09FF99D6A@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 22 Mar 2023, at 10:39, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Personally, if a patch isn't rebased up to the minute doesn't bother me at all. It's easy to check out as of when the email was sent (or extra bonus points for using git format-patch --base). Now, rebasing every month or so is nice, but daily rebases during a commit fest are almost more distracting than just leaving it.
+1. As long as the patch is rebased and builds/tests green when the CF starts
I'm not too worried about not having it always rebased during the CF. If
resolving the conflicts are non-trivial/obvious then of course, but if only to
stay recent and avoid fuzz in applying then it's more distracting.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2023-03-22 10:36:47 | RE: Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format |
| Previous Message | Yugo NAGATA | 2023-03-22 10:17:17 | Re: About a recently-added permission-related error message |