On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:01 PM, David E. Wheeler <da...@kineticode.com> wrote: > ha ha! Alas, I'm completely overcommitted at this point. Been having a hard > time making time for PGXN. I've been tracking the extension stuff closely, > though, as you can imagine.
It's a common problem, and of course none of us are in a position to dictate how other people spend their time. But the issue on the table is whether we want PostgreSQL 9.1 to be released in 2011. If yes, then without making any statements about what any particular person has to or must do, we collectively need to step it up a notch or two. > Looking at the patches without reviewers anyway, frankly none look like the > sorts of things I have the expertise to test in any but the most superficial > way. Are there more that should have the reviewer removed? If there were one > I could give a couple of hours to and speak with some knowledge, I could fix > up some time next week. I just sent a note on some that seem like they could use more looking at, but there may be other ones too. Now is not the time to hold back because you think someone else might be working on it. Most of the time, the fact that a patch has a reviewer means that they either intended to or actually did review it at some point in time, but not that they are necessarily working on it right this minute, and certainly not that other input isn't welcome. This is especially true towards the end of the CommitFest or when the thread hasn't had anything new posted to it for several days. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
