Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres
Date
Msg-id 258e7455-3ed5-1e6b-ec77-37583855a536@iki.fi
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres  (Christian Convey <christian.convey@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres
List pgsql-hackers
On 09/11/2016 01:20 AM, Christian Convey wrote:
> Hi Heikki,
>
> Could I ask you a newbie-reviewer question about something I'm seeing
> here?  https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/776/
>
> From some reading I've done (e.g., Stephen Frost's PGCon 2011 slides),
> I got the impression that a successful patch would always have this
> sequence of states in commitfest:
>   1. patch-record created
>   ...
>   2. Needs Review
>   ...
>   3. Ready for Committer
>
> But if I'm reading the patch's activity log correctly, it looks like
> you marked the patch as "Ready for Committer" (2016-09-06 18:59:02)
> without any record of it having been reviewed.
>
> Was that intentional?

Yeah, I commented on the patches at 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e8e7e5a7-0308-2c36-d32a-7aab16ba498c%40iki.fi. 
It was very cursory, but I figured that would be sufficient feedback for 
now, for Peter to proceed with the first few straightforward patches in 
the series. I don't think there's consensus that we want to do more than 
that, to actually switch to C++.

> P.S. I'm asking because I was planning to review that patch.  But I
> can't tell if any more review by a non-committer is still required by
> the commitfest workflow.

I think this has gotten enough attention, for the commitfest workflow. 
The workflow is flexible, depending on the nature of patch. But of 
course, if you're interested, feel free to review and comment anyway!

- Heikki




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres
Next
From: Christian Convey
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres