2009/11/17 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't wont to apply these patches tomorrow, I don't sending these
>>> patches for last moment. If I have to wait one weak or two weeks, ok.
>>> Declare it. I'll respect it. But actually I respecting all rules, what
>>> I know.
>>
>> If you're sending stuff intended for the next CommitFest in the middle of an
>> active one (which we'd prefer not to see at all but you have your own
>> schedule limitations), it would be helpful if you were to label those
>> patches as such. It's difficult for the rest of us to tell which of the
>> ones you're generating are in response to patches that are active during
>> this one, and which are intended for future review but you're just dropping
>> them off now. Had your new stuff been labeled "This is for the next
>> CommitFest, I'm just sending it to the list now", it would have made it
>> easier on everyone else to figure out which of your messages we need to pay
>> attention to and what should be ignored for now.
>
> This expresses my feelings on the topic exactly, and perhaps merits
> inclusion in a Wiki page someplace. Maybe we need to have a wiki page
> on commitfest rules & expectations.
Ok, It's my mistake. I didn't would to attack anybody. I though so is
sufficient information is registration in commitfest application.
Patch in mailing list is one thing, but registration in second -
crucial. And when commitfest is closed, then is clean, so new patches
goes to next commitfest. I agree - It should frustrating - and it
means some work more (for reades of mailing list). I have not a
problem with labeling, when patch isn't used for current commitfest.
Pavel
>
> ...Robert
>
