Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CommitFest status/management

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CommitFest status/management
Date: 2009-12-01 04:03:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Smith wrote:
> If the need here is to speed up how fast things are fed to committers, 
> we can certainly do that.  The current process still favors having 
> reviewers do as much as possible first, as shown by all the stuff 
> sitting in the re-review queue.  The work we're waiting on them for 
> could be done by the committers instead if we want to shorten the 
> whole process a bit.  I don't think that's really what you want though.

As I have observed before, I think we need some infrastructure to help 
committers claim items, so we don't duplicate work.

Right now the only items marked "ready for reviewer" are Streaming 
Replication and Hot Standby, which I imagine Heiki will be handling.

I'm going to look at the YAML format for EXPLAIN patch shortly.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2009-12-01 04:03:08
Subject: Re: SE-PgSQL patch review
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2009-12-01 03:16:23
Subject: Re: CommitFest status/management

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group