Re: Commitfest 2022-03 One Week in. 3 Commits 213 Patches Remaining

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Commitfest 2022-03 One Week in. 3 Commits 213 Patches Remaining
Date: 2022-03-09 21:46:29
Message-ID: CAM-w4HPYbUkpBq0kjCA3x5hpyJXFF_Ep_EJ_n4OE82x4JBGxpA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 15:44, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
>
> On 3/9/22 13:38, Greg Stark wrote:
> Should I do a round-robin style assignment for any of these?
>
> I don't think this is a good idea. Committers pick the patches they are
> going to commit.
>
> What prefer to do is bump any committers that have been involved in a
> patch thread to see if they are willing to commit it.

Well yes, I suppose that's probably what I had in mind despite calling it that.

But I've been skimming the set of "Ready for Committer" patches and
I'm a bit down on them. Many of them seem to mostly have gotten
feedback from committers already and the type of feedback that leads
me to think it's ready for commit.

I suppose people mark patches "Ready for Committer" when the level of
feedback they require is more in depth or more design feedback that
they think requires a committer even if it's not ready for commit.

So I'm going to go through the patches and ask the committers who have
already commented if they think the patch is on track to be committed
this release or should be pushed to the next commitfest.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2022-03-09 21:57:24 Re: Commitfest 2022-03 One Week in. 3 Commits 213 Patches Remaining
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-03-09 21:31:00 Re: role self-revocation