On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 03:40, Rados?aw Smogura
>> <rsmogura@softperience.eu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Regarding JDBC in the CF process -- other interfaces are handled
>>>> there. I haven't seen one patch this size for JDBC since I've been
>>>> involved, let alone two competing patches to implement the same
>>>> feature. Small patches which can be quickly handled don't make sense
>>>> to put into the process, but it seemed reasonable for these.
>>>
>>> In any way I'm sending this patch, and I will put this under
>>> Miscellaneous in
>>> CF. This cleared patch takes only 47k (in uncleared was some binary read
>>> classes) and about 50% it's big test case.
>>
>> I changed the patch's topic to "JDBC".
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=399
>>
>
> I don't think it makes sense to try to manage anything other than core code
> in the commitfest app. The other patch touched the backend, so it made
> sense to put it in the commitfest, but as far as I understand it, this one
> is pure Java code. There is a backlog of JDBC issues to deal with, but I
> think it needs its own commitfest instead of trying to tack on to the main
> project's.
We could have separate JDBC CommitFests inside the app if that's
helpful - the CommitFests are by convention named YYYY-MM, but the app
will support arbitrary names. The only problem I see is that it would
mess up the calculation of "the currently open CF" and "the currently
in progress CF" and "the most recently closed CF". I'd be willing to
put in the work to fix that, though, if you guys want to use the app
too.
For now I suggest we mark this Returned with Feedback.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company