Re: Closing commitfest 2013-11
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Closing commitfest 2013-11 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRBq+LLDZWf=_mqpMkvq--73RNw6Bguf+J4SFoRmhynj5A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Closing commitfest 2013-11 (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
<p dir="ltr"><br /> Dne 21.1.2014 18:52 "Pavel Stehule" <<a href="mailto:pavel.stehule@gmail.com">pavel.stehule@gmail.com</a>>napsal(a):<br /> ><br /> > Hello<br /> ><br/> > I disagree with it. There was no any request to move "ready for commit" patches to next commitfest! I expectedso only unfinishing patches should by moved there by their authors. I sent question to Peter E. But without reply,but Tom did commits from thist list, so I expected so there is some agreement about it and I did'nt any alarm.<br />><br /> > My patch there is prerequsity for "dump --if-exi<p dir="ltr">Sorry, train and mobile :(<p dir="ltr">Itis required for "dump --if-exists" feature.<p dir="ltr">Regards<p dir="ltr">Pavel<br /> ><br /> > Dne 21.1.201417:41 "Robert Haas" <<a href="mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com">robertmhaas@gmail.com</a>> napsal(a):<br /> ><br/> >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Tom Lane <<a href="mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us</a>>wrote:<br /> >> > Alvaro Herrera <<a href="mailto:alvherre@2ndquadrant.com">alvherre@2ndquadrant.com</a>>writes:<br /> >> >> With apologies toour beloved commitfest-mace-wielding CFM, commitfest<br /> >> >> 2013-11 intentionally still contains a fewopen patches. I think that<br /> >> >> CF is largely being ignored by most people now that we have CF 2014-01<br/> >> >> in progress. If we don't want to do anything about these patches in the<br /> >> >>immediate future, I propose we move them to CF 2014-01.<br /> >> ><br /> >> > I think the ideawas that patch authors should take responsibility for<br /> >> > pushing their patches forward to 2014-01 ifthey still wanted them<br /> >> > considered. Quite a few patches already were moved that way, IIRC.<br /> >><br/> >> Agreed on that general theory.<br /> >><br /> >> And, also, yeah, the shared memory messagequeueing stuff got<br /> >> committed. Sorry, I missed the fact that there was still an open CF<br /> >>entry for that; I assumed that it would have been marked Returned with<br /> >> Feedback.<br /> >><br/> >> --<br /> >> Robert Haas<br /> >> EnterpriseDB: <a href="http://www.enterprisedb.com">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br/> >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company<br />>><br /> >><br /> >> --<br /> >> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (<a href="mailto:pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org">pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org</a>)<br/> >> To make changes to your subscription:<br/> >> <a href="http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers">http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers</a><br/>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: