Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> All have been awaiting review for at least a month (though in one case
> >> the latest version is quite recent). They probably ought to be on the
> >> hold queue; all are ready to be reviewed for final
> >> application/rejection.
> >>
> >> I'd hasten to add that none of those are mine. My patches have received
> >> good attention, so I'm not complaining just completing admin.
> > 
> > You might remember months ago that people were complaining I was pushing
> > things into CVS too quickly, so while the patches are in my mailbox,
> > they are not in the queue until I feel the community has the time to
> > focus on it.
> So, there's a queue of patches in your mailbox waiting to get to the 
> queue? A queue to the queue :). All the patches clearly need review, so 
> let's not rush them into the CVS, but it'd be nice to have them all in 
> one queue.

Right, because even the decision of whether they should be in the queue
is a decision for us.  The hold queue additions are less stringent than
the main patch queue.

> Ps. I agree with the later comments that the naming of the two patch 
> queues is a bit confusing. Having queues named after the release numbers 
> the patches are targeted for seems like a good idea.

OK, naming suggestions?

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to