Re: commitfest status
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: commitfest status |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqRAFwmYE+3RAenq4h_M3LH7cUBVhu10QOz-+ruO_AF3Bw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: commitfest status (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > In past, I have seen that we try to make sure that each patch > gets atleast one review in CF, so do you think we should try > that this time as well (I think patches which don't have even one > review are not too many). To be honest, I don't have any concrete > plan to make that happen except for identifying such patches and > request on list for a review of those patches or may be try to review > myself for one or more of those. By looking at the commit fest app... Some patches did not get a review and do not have assigned reviewers: - CSN snapshots - Event trigger, object creation - Partial sort - Refactor SSL code to support other SSL implementations Not the easiest ones. Some have reviewers but didn't get a review: - Reducing impact of hints/cleanup for SELECTs - pg_shmem_allocations view - contrib/fastbloat - tool for quickly assessing bloat stats for a table There are as well a couple of patches that have received some comments but seem somewhat in a stale state: - KNN-GiST with recheck has received comments from Heikki that have not been addressed, so I switched it now to "Waiting on author" - Patch for generic atomics has received some feedback but status is unclear by looking at the commit fest app. - Per table autovacuum vacuum cost parameters behavior change Regards, -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: