On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > So focus your effort by leaving this alone until the end of the CF. > Actively terminating things early doesn't help at all with the review > work you mention above, but it looks good if we are measuring "cases > resolved per day". Are we measuring that? If so, why? Who cares?
We don't formally measure that, but yeah, I definitely keep an eye on it. I've found that if you don't keep a sharp eye on that, you end up not done with the CommitFest is supposed to be over. I'd much rather boot patches for reasonable justification throughout the CommitFest than boot everything at the end whether there's a justification or not. > Closing early gains us nothing, though might close the door on useful > work in progress. IMHO, closing early LOSES us nothing. People are free to work on their patches whenever they'd like, and hopefully will. But pretending we're going to review them all no matter when they get resubmitted just makes people grumpy when they find out that we're not magical and can't. A further point is that it's very difficult to keep track of progress if the CF page reflects a whole bunch of supposedly "Waiting on Author" patches that are really quite thoroughly dead. On the other hand, if this patch was really resubmitted already and I missed it, as you suggested, that's a whole different situation. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
