Re: ProcessUtility_hook
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ProcessUtility_hook |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16534.1259634299@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ProcessUtility_hook (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: ProcessUtility_hook
Re: ProcessUtility_hook |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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. > 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 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. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: