| From: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest process |
| Date: | 2008-03-08 00:23:48 |
| Message-ID: | 47D1DC94.5060901@esilo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> This is reasonable for the sort of medium-to-large patch that the author
> has put a lot of time into. But we also get a lot of small one-off
> patches where it's not so reasonable. Now of course many of those get
> applied right away, but not all.
>
Just a thought... maybe a distinction should be made between "quick-fix" patches
and things that would require more review due to behavior changes or new
features. Seems reasonable to treat something like HOT and a one line patch
differently.
Not sure where the magic line would be drawn: size of patch, is it a bug fix or
a new feature, requires extensive testing (more time), etc... I do think it is
overkill to have a wiki entry for a one line patch with a 30 minute life-span
(either thrown out or applied).
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2008-03-08 07:50:37 | Re: Commitfest process |
| Previous Message | Robert Lor | 2008-03-07 22:22:24 | Re: Commitfest process |