Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:59:50 -0400
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>> If you posted it last month then it was too late for the commit-fest
>> that started on March 1, IIRC, so the fact that you didn't get
>> feedback is hardly surprising - a commit-fest is like a
>> mini-feature-freeze.
>
> O.k. then what happens at that point? It wasn't in the queue for May (I
> had to add it)
There is different viewpoints on how it should happen. Hopefully the
picture will be clearer after one or two more commit fests.
Based on my observations, there's basically three different workflows a
patch can follow (assuming the patch gets committed in the end):
Workflow A:
1. You post patch to pgsql-patches
2. a committer picks it up immediately, and commits it.
Workflow B:
1. You post a patch to pgsql-patches
2. You add a link to the wiki page of the next commit fest
3. A committer picks up the patch from the wiki page, and commits it
Workflow C:
1. You post a patch to pgsql-patches
2. Bruce adds the patch to the unapplied patches queue after a while
3. At the beginning of the next commit fest, Alvaro (with the help from
others, I hope) goes through the patches queue, and puts a link to the
wiki page of the next commit fest
4. A committer picks up the patch from the wiki page, and commits it
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
