On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>> I think it might be time to revisit this issue. SR is in, and we have
>>> a week left in the CF, and we have all of the above patches plus 5
>>> small ones left to deal with. rbtree is close to being committable, I
>>> think; knngist has not been reviewed yet; you (Tom) have claimed the
>>> frame options patch but I haven't seen any update on it in a while; I
>>> doubt either of the other two are ready to commit but I'm not sure how
>>> far they have to go.
>>
>> I think, as previously discussed, that we should bounce knngist. It's
>> a complex patch and nobody saw anything of it until Jan 15, so I don't
>> feel bad about it. Mark Cave-Ayland was going to review it, but
>> apparently felt that rbtree was the higher priority.
Hey, I'm lost here, when we previously discussed, that knngist should be
rejected ? knngist is a legal patch, submitted in time (and discussed in
-hackers) and it's not our fault, people are busy doing other reviews.
Knngist has some prerequisites, rbtree, for example, and it took a while,
but now, when we're close to commit rbtree, people can review knngist.
>
> rbtree is a prerequisite for knngist. point_ops was too. I think
> we're going to get rbtree done yet, but the main patch seems out of
> reach. There's no way it's going to go in without both pre-commit and
> post-commit changes, and I don't think we have time for that now.
>
We have a week to get review and do possible required pre-commit changes.
Mark, you can download test data for knngist from
http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/wiki/2009-11-25
Regards, Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
