Re: 8.4 release planning

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning
Date: 2009-01-27 05:38:17
Message-ID: 603c8f070901262138n1ea4c4cpcb3b98c2f1c28240@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> The reviewing that happened during this CommitFest did not happen on
>> the basis of who was interested in which patches. There was a bit of
>> that, but for the most part people reviewed the patches that they were
>> asked to review. I assumed (am I the only one?) that the REASON why
>> we were not asked to review SE-PostgreSQL or Hot Standby is because
>> the committers were planning to do that themselves due to the
>> complexity of the patches.
>
> Actually, I did assign someone to do a build and specification review. But
> yes, I expected that the code review would *have* to be done by a long-term
> committer. I pretty much assume that of anything over 300 lines.
>
> The idea behind having new reviewers take on all the small patches, was, of
> course, to give the main committers more time with patches like SEPostgres.
> It worked with other stuff (like Windowing and CTE).

Right, so, then I'm not sure why Tom is taking the lack of review as a
sign of lack of interest.

...Robert

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2009-01-27 05:40:49 Re: 8.4 release planning
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-01-27 05:36:55 Re: 8.4 release planning