Bruce Momjian wrote:
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.
I'm confused, I thought the difference between the pgpatches queue and
the pgpatches_hold queue is the release the patch is targeted for. If
there's a third queue for patches that need review before being added to
another queue, could we have that visible somewhere, so that we know
what's in it?
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?
The "8.3 patch queue", and the "8.4 patch queue"?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
