| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: logical column ordering |
| Date: | 2015-03-23 17:07:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQC8p+7=F8G5t09UiwvQLOwRgG5jce+WpGsFjp3t48pAw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm a little confused as to the status of this patch. It's marked as
> Waiting on Author in the CommitFest application, and the last patch
> version was posted in December. The fact that the new CommitFest
> application encourages people to blindly move things to the next CF
> instead of forcing patch authors to reopen the record when they update
> the patch is, IMHO, not good. It's just going to lead to the CF
> application filling up with things that the authors aren't really
> working on. We've got enough work to do with the patches that are
> actually under active development.
Maybe there should be a "stalled" patch status summary, that
highlights patches that have not had their status change in (say) 2
weeks. Although it wouldn't really be a status summary, since that
they're mutually exclusive with each other in the CF app (e.g. a patch
cannot be both "Waiting on Author" and "Ready for Committer").
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-03-23 17:08:55 | Re: logical column ordering |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-03-23 17:01:48 | Re: logical column ordering |