Re: Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i
Дата
Msg-id
3050135.1646242097@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Re: Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i (Greg Stark)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Re: Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Re: Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Re: Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Re: Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Re: Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Re: Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Re: Commitfest 2022-03 Patch Triage Part 1a.i Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Greg Stark writes: > Do I have this right? What is the right state to put a patch in that > means "this patch doesn't need to be triaged again unless the author > actually feels progress has been made and needs new feedback or thinks > its committable"? But that's not really the goal, is it? ISTM what you want to do is identify patches that we're not going to try to get into v15, and then push them out to the next CF so that we don't spend more time on them this month. But that determination should not preclude them from being looked at on the normal basis once the next CF arrives. So I'd say just push them forward with status "Needs review" or "Waiting on author", whichever seems more appropriate. If a patch seems to have stalled to the point where neither of those statuses is appropriate, then closing it RWF would be the thing to do; but that's not special to the last-CF situation. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления