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 http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate