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,

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,

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:

Reply via email to