On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> The CommitFest is supposed to be a time to
>> *commit the patches that are ready to be committed*, not to wait
>> indefinitely for them to become ready to be committed.
>
> I beg to differ. Commit Fests are the time when patch authors know they
> can get feedback from the community and in particular committers.
>
> So as a patch author it's best if you can arrange your schedule and be
> ready to submit new versions as asked, or comment on your design choices
> and trade-offs, etc.
>
> Patch commit can happen whenever in the cycle at the discretion of the
> committer. Commit Fest are all about *review* and *feedback*.
Sure, I don't disagree with any of that.
>> I therefore propose that we start by marking all of the patches that
>> are currently Waiting on Author as Returned with Feedback. Most of
>> them have been that way for a long time.
>
> That seems fair.
>
>> Then, I think all of the people who are listed as reviewers need to
>> take a look at the current state of their patches and decide whether
>> or not they are reasonably ready to be committed. If they are, then
>
> I've been distracted away from this commit fest but should be able to
> get back to it now. Will post soon about the patches I enrolled myself
> with.
Thanks.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
