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

Re: CF3+4

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CF3+4
Date: 2013-01-17 07:05:05
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> This seems sensible to me. 2012-11 is gone, whether truly finished or
> not, and if everyone's OK with it I'd like to move all open work into
> 2013-01, close 2012-11, and open 2013-03 for post-9.3 work. That'll at
> least provide a place for post-9.3 patches and consolodate everything
> for somewhat easier tracking.
Is it really necessary to create a new commit fest just to move the items?
Marking the patches that are considered as being too late for 9.3 should be
just returned with feedback. The former patch writers, or people who want
to pick up the old patches and resubmit them, will just need to move the
items to the 9.4 commit fests once they are officially created.
Michael Paquier

In response to

  • Re: CF3+4 at 2013-01-17 06:52:53 from Craig Ringer


  • Re: CF3+4 at 2013-01-17 07:15:52 from Abhijit Menon-Sen

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Abhijit Menon-SenDate: 2013-01-17 07:15:52
Subject: Re: CF3+4
Previous:From: Craig RingerDate: 2013-01-17 06:52:53
Subject: Re: CF3+4

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