| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: September 2015 Commitfest |
| Date: | 2015-10-22 01:52:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSRmugC2-w7Jb9p2qq9SebvTdgyVM8XzsSNQpTsfwyCtg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> To review (copying Heikki's message):
>
> 1. Pick a patch from the list at:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/6/
>
> 2. Review it. Test it. Try to break it. Do we want the feature? Any
> weird interactions in corner-cases? Does it have the intended or an
> unintended performance impact?
>
> 3. Reply on the thread on pgsql-hackers with your findings.
>
> It is perfectly OK to review a patch that someone else has signed up for as
> reviewer - different people tend to pay attention to different things.
We are close to the end of October, and the numbers are a bit more
encouraging than at the beginning:
Needs review: 27.
Waiting on Author: 12.
Ready for Committer: 5.
Committed: 30
Among the five patches marked as ready for committer, one is a bug fix
that should be back-patched (ahem). Shouldn't we move on with those
entries first? Also, to all reviewers and authors, please be sure that
the status of your patch is correctly updated.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Torsten Zühlsdorff | 2015-10-22 07:11:04 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-10-22 01:51:43 | Re: WIP: Rework access method interface |