Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 10:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > All have been awaiting review for at least a month (though in one case
> > > the latest version is quite recent). They probably ought to be on the
> > > hold queue; all are ready to be reviewed for final
> > > application/rejection.
> > >
> > > I'd hasten to add that none of those are mine. My patches have received
> > > good attention, so I'm not complaining just completing admin.
> >
> > You might remember months ago that people were complaining I was pushing
> > things into CVS too quickly, so while the patches are in my mailbox,
> > they are not in the queue until I feel the community has the time to
> > focus on it.
>
> I'm sorry if I explained that badly. All I meant to say was that the
> patches aren't on the queue for review, so could they be placed at the
> appropriate chronological point in the queue. (I was/am imagining the
> queue to be ordered in time of arrival).
It is.
> Patch review is, for me, harder than writing patches in the first place,
> so with that in mind I don't expect it to happen quickly. You've
> explained your on it now, so I'm patient.
The issue is that the _hold_ patches are for patches that arrived after
feature freeze. The patches that arrived after 8.2 was released don't
go in there because it might cause confusion. I also have to control
how quickly I push out patches from the queue so as not to overwhelm
folks.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
