> Thanks. It sounds like worst-case scenario, I perform an unneeded
> review. I'll give it a shot.
Apologies for more boring process-related questions, but any pointers
would be greatly appreciated...
I'm a bit confused about how PG's code-review process is meant to
handle this C++ port. My confusion may stem from the combination of
my inexperience with the process, and there being two competing patch
Here's some background:
* My intention was to review Joy's patch.
* On "commitfest.postgresql.org" (for 2016-09), the only C++
-related patch I found was Peter's: 
* I wrongly assumed that the commitfest entry would be for
Joy's patch, not Peter's, so I signed up as its reviewer.
(That's fine - I don't mind reviewing both authors' patch
But here are my questions:
Q1) My understanding of PG's code-review process is that it's a pipeline:
Step 1. The discussion starts on the pgsql-hackers mailing list, where
the author posts a patch. He/she may also post revised patches
based on the discussion.
Step 2. A subset of those discussions are modeled by new entries in
the commitfest website.
Step 3. A subset of those commitfest items get merged.
If that's correct, then it sounds like the only way Joy's commit has
a chance of acceptance is if Peter's commit is rejected.
Because Peter's commit might be merged as part of the 2016-09
commitfest, but Joy's can show up until 2016-11 at the earliest.
Is my understanding correct?
There seems to be a little ambiguity regarding the exact version of
the code to be reviewed. This is true for both Joy's and Peter's
* Joy's email provides a link to a Github repo, but does not specify
a particular commit (or even branch) in that repo: 
* In the email thread, Peter did provide a patch set: 
but the corresponding commitfest entry references a github branch: 
So I have a few questions here:
Q2) Are authors expected to submit an unambiguous patch to frame the
discussion? (I.e,. a specific patch file, or a specific git commit
hash, as opposed to a github repo or a github branch.)
Q3) Are authors expected to submit a single patch/commit, or is it
acceptable / desirable for a large patch to be broken up as Peter has
Q4) Do we require that any submitted patches appear as attachments on
the pgsql-hackers email list, or is a github URL good enough?
Q5) (This question is more generic.) I'm accustomed to using Github's
pull-request system, where I can engage in dialog regarding specifc
lines of a patch. I haven't noticed anything similar being used for
PG code reviews, but perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong places.
Are all PG code reviews basically just back-and-forth email
conversations on the pgsql-hackers list?
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: