On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I think a reasonable way to proceed might be to get some consensus on > a short list of patches we're willing to try to push to completion, > then set a schedule accordingly, and then anything that doesn't get > done by the deadline gets kicked to 9.3. > > Or we can just keep drifting. But the number of open patches that > are *not* Ready for Committer, nigh two months after the CF started, > is depressingly large.
* FOR KEY SHARE locks looks in very good shape and so I'm spending time on that with a view to committing it next week if all goes well * pg_stat_statements looks good also, I hope someone is looking at that It's a good thing we have so many patches. We just need to organise ourselves to ensure that we're working on priority items and spot important things that are receiving no attention. At this stage the CF app isn't helping us much. We need some way to indicate who is actively working on review, not just a list of people who have at some point reviewed it. Patches without committers will likely suffer, so we need to be able to see the Committers column on the display, so we know whether a patch needs one assigned. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
