Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > So, if someone writes a patch, and it is reviewed, and the patch author
> > updates the patch and replies, it still should be reviewed again before
> > being committed?
>
> Well, that's for the reviewer to say --- if the update satisfies his
> concerns, he should sign off on it, if not not. I've tried to avoid
> pre-empting that process.
OK, so the reviewer knows he has to reply to the author's comments, OK.
> > Also, we are two weeks into the commit fest and we have more unapplied
> > patches than applied ones.
>
> Yup. Lots of unfinished reviews out there. Robert spent a good deal
> of effort in the last two fests trying to light fires under reviewers;
> do you want to take up that cudgel? I think wholesale commits of things
I am afraid I am then duplicating work the commit fest manager is doing,
and if someone is bugged by me and the CF manager, they might get upset.
> that haven't finished review is mostly going to send a signal that the
> review process doesn't matter, which is *not* the signal I think we
> should send.
True.
Maybe I am best focusing on open issues like the threading and psql -1
patches I worked on today. There is certainly enough of that stuff to
keep me busy. I thought I could help with the commit fest load, but now
I am unsure. That non-commit-fest stuff has to be done too so maybe
managing that will help.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
