Re: commitfest 2018-07

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: commitfest 2018-07
Date: 2018-06-05 03:32:18
Message-ID: 739.1528169538@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 07:16:33PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> There were some discussions about renaming the existing 2018-09 entry
>> versus inserting a new one at -07 and requiring patches to be moved back
>> explicitly.

> I would do that to reduce unnecessary log noise, but I was unsure of the
> actual status we are at. I am pretty sure that nobody is going to
> complain if what they submitted gets looked up two months earlier than
> what was previously planned, so I would vote to rename the existing
> 2018-09 to 2018-07, to rename the existing 2018-11 to 2018-09, and to
> create three new CF entries.

+1 for just renaming 2018-09 to 2018-07, if we can do that. We'll end
up postponing some entries back to -09, but that seems like less churn
than the other way.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2018-06-05 03:39:16 Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-06-05 03:30:46 Re: commitfest 2018-07