Hi,
> I think it would be better to just remove the "consensus" part of your
> mail, and just put down the real reason why each patch is being RfC-ed
> or rejected. That is, don't imply that there are hackers that OK-ed it
> when there are none, and inform patch authors directly about the
> reason
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 1:01 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> I have done several passes to make sure that patch statuses are more
> accurate. As explained in a nearby message, I have set several patches
> back from "Ready to Committer" to "Needs review" if additional
> discussion happened past the
On Mon, 4 Sept 2023 at 18:19, Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi Matthias,
>
> > I'm a bit confused about your use of "consensus". True, there was no
> > objection, but it looks like no patch author or reviewer was informed
> > (cc-ed or directly referenced) that the patch was being discussed
> > b
Hi Matthias,
> I'm a bit confused about your use of "consensus". True, there was no
> objection, but it looks like no patch author or reviewer was informed
> (cc-ed or directly referenced) that the patch was being discussed
> before achieving this "consensus", and the "consensus" was reached
> wit
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 14:35, Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 11:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > There are a number of patches carried over from the PG16 development
> > > cycle that have been in "Waiting on author" for several months. I will
> > > aggressively pr
Hi Peter,
> The patch was first set to "Ready for Committer" on 2023-03-29, and if I
> pull up the thread in the web archive view, that is in the middle of the
> page. So as a committer, I would expect that someone would review
> whatever happened in the second half of that thread before turning
I have done several passes to make sure that patch statuses are more
accurate. As explained in a nearby message, I have set several patches
back from "Ready to Committer" to "Needs review" if additional
discussion happened past the first status change. I have also in
several cases removed rev
On 04.09.23 15:22, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
Hi Peter,
Okay, here we go, starting with:
Status summary: Needs review: 227. Waiting on Author: 37. Ready for
Committer: 30. Committed: 40. Rejected: 1. Returned with Feedback: 1.
Withdrawn: 1. Total: 337.
(which is less than CF 2023-07)
I have
Hi Peter,
> Okay, here we go, starting with:
>
> Status summary: Needs review: 227. Waiting on Author: 37. Ready for
> Committer: 30. Committed: 40. Rejected: 1. Returned with Feedback: 1.
> Withdrawn: 1. Total: 337.
>
> (which is less than CF 2023-07)
>
> I have also already applied one round of
Okay, here we go, starting with:
Status summary: Needs review: 227. Waiting on Author: 37. Ready for
Committer: 30. Committed: 40. Rejected: 1. Returned with Feedback: 1.
Withdrawn: 1. Total: 337.
(which is less than CF 2023-07)
I have also already applied one round of the waiting-on-author-
Hi,
> > There are a number of patches carried over from the PG16 development
> > cycle that have been in "Waiting on author" for several months. I will
> > aggressively prune those after the start of this commitfest if there
> > hasn't been any author activity by then.
>
> The "64-bit TOAST value
Hi Peter,
> Commitfest 2023-09 (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/44/) starts in
> less than 28 hours.
>
> If you have any patches you would like considered, be sure to add them
> in good time.
>
> All patch authors, and especially experienced hackers, are requested to
> make sure the patch status
Commitfest 2023-09 (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/44/) starts in
less than 28 hours.
If you have any patches you would like considered, be sure to add them
in good time.
All patch authors, and especially experienced hackers, are requested to
make sure the patch status is up to date. If
13 matches
Mail list logo
