On 09/11/2016 01:20 AM, Christian Convey wrote:
Could I ask you a newbie-reviewer question about something I'm seeing
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?
Yeah, I commented on the patches at
It was very cursory, but I figured that would be sufficient feedback for
now, for Peter to proceed with the first few straightforward patches in
the series. I don't think there's consensus that we want to do more than
that, to actually switch to C++.
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.
I think this has gotten enough attention, for the commitfest workflow.
The workflow is flexible, depending on the nature of patch. But of
course, if you're interested, feel free to review and comment anyway!
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: