Hi Heikki, Could I ask you a newbie-reviewer question about something I'm seeing here? https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/776/
>From some reading I've done (e.g., Stephen Frost's PGCon 2011 slides), I got the impression that a successful patch would always have this sequence of states in commitfest: 1. patch-record created ... 2. Needs Review ... 3. Ready for Committer But if I'm reading the patch's activity log correctly, it looks like you marked the patch as "Ready for Committer" (2016-09-06 18:59:02) without any record of it having been reviewed. Was that intentional? Thanks very much, Christian P.S. I'm asking because I was planning to review that patch. But I can't tell if any more review by a non-committer is still required by the commitfest workflow. Kind regards, Christian On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Christian Convey <christian.con...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> (2) It seems like there are still a few big questions about this commit: >>> - Is it wanted at the moment? It didn't seem like there's a >>> consensus about whether or not this enhancement should be >>> merged, even if the patch is pretty minimal. >>> - It seems like there are two competing patch >>> sets in play for this enhancement: Joy's and >>> Peter's. Presumably at most one of them would >>> be merged. >> >> These are things that reviews should be helping to decide. It's probably >> a squishier topic than some patches, but if you're interested, feel free >> to read code and weigh in. > > Thanks. It sounds like worst-case scenario, I perform an unneeded > review. I'll give it a shot. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
