| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Closing commitfest 2013-11 |
| Date: | 2014-01-21 19:38:29 |
| Message-ID: | 52DECCB5.9000501@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/20/2014 10:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the idea was that patch authors should take responsibility for
> pushing their patches forward to 2014-01 if they still wanted them
> considered. Quite a few patches already were moved that way, IIRC.
>
> Agreed though that we shouldn't let them just rot.
Does this mean I can resurrect my pg_sleep_until() patch? I didn't set
it back to Needs Review after I completely changed my approach based on
feedback. I would hate for it to get lost just because I didn't know
how to use the commitfest app.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1189
--
Vik
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-01-21 19:45:54 | Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET typos and fix for temporary file name management |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-21 19:26:18 | Re: Funny representation in pg_stat_statements.query. |