On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Magnus Hagander
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>> > I think the old system where the patch submitter declared, this message
>> > contains my patch, is the only on
On 3/3/15 11:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:58:28AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Would you suggest removing the automated system completely, or keep it
>>> around
>>> and just make it possible to override it (either by removing the note that
>>> something is a patch, o
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:58:28AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Would you suggest removing the automated system completely, or keep it
> > around
> > and just make it possible to override it (either by removing the note that
> > something is a patch, or by making something that's not listed as
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 03:12:12PM -0500, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > # Attempt to identify the file using magic information
> > mtype = mag.buffer(contents)
> > if mtype.startswith('text/x-diff'):
> > a.ispatch
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <
ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
> On 02/26/2015 01:59 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Asif Naeem wrote:
> >> This thread seems relevant, Please guide me to how can access older CF
> pages
> >>> The MSVC porti
Thank you Michael, It works.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Asif Naeem wrote:
> > This thread seems relevant, Please guide me to how can access older CF
> pages
> >> The MSVC portion of this fix got completely lost in the void:
> >> ht
On 02/26/2015 01:59 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Asif Naeem wrote:
>> This thread seems relevant, Please guide me to how can access older CF pages
>>> The MSVC portion of this fix got completely lost in the void:
>>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_v
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Asif Naeem wrote:
> This thread seems relevant, Please guide me to how can access older CF pages
>> The MSVC portion of this fix got completely lost in the void:
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1330
>
> Above link result in the following e
Hi,
This thread seems relevant, Please guide me to how can access older CF
pages e.g.
Thread
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/51f19059.7050...@pgexperts.com#51f19059.7050...@pgexperts.com
mentions
following link i.e.
The MSVC portion of this fix got completely lost in the void:
> https:
On 2/22/15 3:12 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Would you suggest removing the automated system completely, or keep it
> around and just make it possible to override it (either by removing the
> note that something is a patch, or by making something that's not listed
> as a patch become marked as such
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> also think that it's a waste of screen space to show "who" within the
>> annotation view. Granted, the old app supported this, but I tend to
>> think that if I actually cared who added a certain annotation, I'd b
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I think the old system where the patch submitter declared, this message
> > contains my patch, is the only one that will work.
>
> I tend to agree. That being said, calling out
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/14/15 7:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Robert Haas > Can we make it smarter, so that the kinds of things people produce
> > intending for them to be patches are thought by the CF app to be
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think the old system where the patch submitter declared, this message
> contains my patch, is the only one that will work.
I tend to agree. That being said, calling out latest attachments is
also useful (or highlighting that a particula
On 2/14/15 7:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Robert Haas Can we make it smarter, so that the kinds of things people produce
> intending for them to be patches are thought by the CF app to be
> patches?
>
>
> Doing it wouldn't be too hard, as the code r
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Hmm. This kind of looks like the right idea, but it's hard to use,
>> because all you've got to work with is the subject of the message
>> (which is the same for all), the time it was sent, and the author. In
>> the old system, you could
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > Ok, I've pushed an attempt at doing this.
> >
> > For each mailthread, you can now create annotations. Each annotation is
> > connected to a mail in the thread, and has a free text
On 2/14/15 11:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Ok, I've pushed an attempt at doing this.
For each mailthread, you can now create annotations. Each annotation is
connected to a mail in the thread, and has a free text comment field. The
message wi
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Ok, I've pushed an attempt at doing this.
>
> For each mailthread, you can now create annotations. Each annotation is
> connected to a mail in the thread, and has a free text comment field. The
> message will then automatically be "highligh
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Marco Nenciarini
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Il 08/02/15 17:04, Magnus Hagander ha scritto:
> >> >
> >> > Filenames are now shown for attachments, includin
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> > On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Jeff Janes
>> wrote:
>> >> I'd like the ability to add a comment which does not get turned into an
>> >> email.
>>
>> > I r
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Marco Nenciarini
> wrote:
>>
>> Il 08/02/15 17:04, Magnus Hagander ha scritto:
>> >
>> > Filenames are now shown for attachments, including a direct link to the
>> > attachment itself. I've also run a job t
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Marco Nenciarini <
marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it> wrote:
> Il 08/02/15 17:04, Magnus Hagander ha scritto:
> >
> > Filenames are now shown for attachments, including a direct link to the
> > attachment itself. I've also run a job to populate all old threads.
> >
Il 08/02/15 17:04, Magnus Hagander ha scritto:
>
> Filenames are now shown for attachments, including a direct link to the
> attachment itself. I've also run a job to populate all old threads.
>
I wonder what is the algorithm to detect when an attachment is a patch.
If you look at https://comm
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Filenames are now shown for attachments, including a direct link to the
> attachment itself. I've also run a job to populate all old threads.
Thanks!
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Com
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> One thing that would probably *help* is if the list of attachments
>>> mentioned the names of the files that were attached to each message
>>> rather than just noting that they
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >> I'd like the ability to add a comment which does not get turned into an
> >> email.
>
> > I really don't ;)
>
> > The reason I really don't like that is that this
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> I'd like the ability to add a comment which does not get turned into an
>> email.
> I really don't ;)
> The reason I really don't like that is that this now makes it impossible to
> track the review status by just re
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Magnus Hagander
>> wrote:
>> > So in an attempt to actually move this forward in a constructive way I'm
>> > going to ignore a bunch of what happened afte
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Magnus Hagander
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Magnus Hagander
>> wrote:
>> > The new site has been deployed and should now be usable.
>>
>> There are, for some reason, three copies of "Clar
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I liked to add comments which would point out some fact that was important
> to testing but which was non-obvious. Often this fact was mentioned
> somewhere in the 300 message thread, but it needs to be called out
> specifically for people intere
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > So in an attempt to actually move this forward in a constructive way I'm
> > going to ignore a bunch of what happened after this email, and fork the
> > discussion at this point.
>
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> So in an attempt to actually move this forward in a constructive way I'm
> going to ignore a bunch of what happened after this email, and fork the
> discussion at this point.
Thanks, and I probably owe you an apology for some of that, so,
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> (While I'm complaining, the links only go to the "flat" version of the
>> thread, while I happen to prefer the version that shows one message at
>> a time with a message-ID selector to
On 2015-02-06 11:51:50 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> So in an attempt to actually move this forward in a constructive way I'm
> going to ignore a bunch of what happened after this email, and fork the
> discussion at this point.
Sounds good.
> First of all - assuming we'lI fix this particular t
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > I assume what was referred to was that the old cf app would show the
> last 3
> > (I think it was) comments/patches/whatnot on a patch on the summary page
> > (and then clickthrou
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> (While I'm complaining, the links only go to the "flat" version of the
> thread, while I happen to prefer the version that shows one message at
> a time with a message-ID selector to switch messages.)
>
Then you're clicking the wrong link :)
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > Yes, and the agreement after that feedback was to try it out and then
> figure
> > out what changes were needed? As about half the feedback said it was
> better
> > without and hal
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> In order to get a consensus on moving to a new app I had to explain what
> was wrong with the old app. Eventually I had to use strong language to
> do so, because nobody was paying attention otherwise. While Magnus's
> app isn't my original p
Robert,
> Didn't stop me. And actually, I didn't face a shitstorm of criticism.
> The way I remember it, I got a pretty much unqualified positive
> reaction at the time.
Including from me, because it was a huge improvement on what we had
before. As the new app is.
> Only later, when you had c
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 01/26/2015 01:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Furthermore,
>> if it sucked so bad, why did it take anyone 5 years to get around to
>> rewriting it? It took me less than a year to get around to replacing
>> what you wrote.
>
> Because whoever
On 2015-01-26 13:32:51 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 01/26/2015 01:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Furthermore,
> > if it sucked so bad, why did it take anyone 5 years to get around to
> > rewriting it? It took me less than a year to get around to replacing
> > what you wrote.
>
> Because whoever
On 01/26/2015 01:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Furthermore,
> if it sucked so bad, why did it take anyone 5 years to get around to
> rewriting it? It took me less than a year to get around to replacing
> what you wrote.
Because whoever replaced it knew they'd be facing a shitstorm of criticism?
-
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Well, if it's essentially unusable, then we've reached parity with the
> old app (yes, you deserved that).
No, I didn't. What we had before I wrote that tool was a bunch of
wiki pages you put together which were forever having problems with
m
On 01/26/2015 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I find the new tool essentially unusable - having one
> link to the whole thread instead of individual links to just the
> important messages in that thread is a huge regression for me, as is
> the lack of the most recent activity on the summary page.
W
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I assume what was referred to was that the old cf app would show the last 3
> (I think it was) comments/patches/whatnot on a patch on the summary page
> (and then clickthrough for more details).
Yep.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> According to my mailbox, you didn't even respond on that thread. But it may
> well be that your email ended up on some other thread and therefor was not
> included when I went back and looked over all the responses I got on it. If
> that wa
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> On 2015-01-26 12:54:04 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > > Well, I can't speak to anyone else's opinion, but I'm quite sure I
> > > raised the issue that we need a way to call out
On 2015-01-26 12:54:04 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Well, I can't speak to anyone else's opinion, but I'm quite sure I
> > raised the issue that we need a way to call out which messages in the
> > thread are important, and I think that's
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > Yes, and the agreement after that feedback was to try it out and then
> figure
> > out what changes were needed? As about half the feedback said it was
> better
> > without and hal
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, I can't speak to anyone else's opinion, but I'm quite sure I
> raised the issue that we need a way to call out which messages in the
> thread are important, and I think that's pretty much what Peter is
> saying, too.
It is.
> I find th
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Yes, and the agreement after that feedback was to try it out and then figure
> out what changes were needed? As about half the feedback said it was better
> without and half said it was better with.
Well, I can't speak to anyone else's opi
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Andrew Gierth
> > wrote:
> >> There's a fairly serious readability problem when someone has posted a
> >> patch as a subthread of some more general
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Andrew Gierth
> wrote:
>> There's a fairly serious readability problem when someone has posted a
>> patch as a subthread of some more general discussion. For example, look
>> at the "adaptive ndistinct esti
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Andrew Gierth
wrote:
> There's a fairly serious readability problem when someone has posted a
> patch as a subthread of some more general discussion. For example, look
> at the "adaptive ndistinct estimator" patch: it's not obvious which
> attachment is the actual
> "Peter" == Peter Geoghegan writes:
Peter> The mailing list integration is good, but seems like it could
Peter> often be overkill. I just want to "tag" an existing message for
Peter> readability here, like with the old commitfest app. I like to
Peter> make things easy to find from the CF
Is there any possibility of making it possible to "annotate"
particular messages (in particular, patch-related messages) with brief
comments? I would like to be able to highlight particular messages as
particular versions of the patch, and have it be apparent what
properties that version has at a g
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> seems the CF app uses an invalid e-mail address when sending messages to
> pgsql-hackers - I've added a comment to one of the patches and got this:
>
> pgsql-hackers-testing@localhost
> Unrouteable address
>
> Maybe that's expec
Hi,
seems the CF app uses an invalid e-mail address when sending messages to
pgsql-hackers - I've added a comment to one of the patches and got this:
pgsql-hackers-testing@localhost
Unrouteable address
Maybe that's expected as the CF app is new, but I haven't seen it
mentioned in this thre
Hi,
Thanks for the excellent work on the new commitfest app. It looks
awesome so far, though I'm betting the commitfest manager is the one who
reaps the most benefits.
Wanted to highlight this request:
Andres Freund wrote:
> What I'm also missing from the old app is that previously 'reviews'
>
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Now that I'm back on this side of the Pacific, is there any additional
> data entry/cleanup which needs doing?
An extra look would be worth it. Magnus or I may have missed patch
entries between the old and new apps.
My2c.
--
Michael
--
Sen
Magnus,
Now that I'm back on this side of the Pacific, is there any additional
data entry/cleanup which needs doing?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://w
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> >> I think you misunderstood me ;). I was talking about the old CF
> >> application providing a RSS feed of all changes to all entries.
> >> https://commitfes
2015-01-20 19:16 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
> Hi
>
> I cannot to set my name as author for patch:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/4/112/
>
It is solved now - I don't understand a autocomplete in first moment
All works well
Regards
Pavel
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
> 2015-01-13 6:35 GMT+01:00
Hi
I cannot to set my name as author for patch:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/4/112/
Regards
Pavel
2015-01-13 6:35 GMT+01:00 Magnus Hagander :
> Hi!
>
> Last I said something about the new CF app I said I was planning to deploy
> it over the holidays, and that clearly did not happen.
>
> B
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> >> I think you misunderstood me ;). I was talking about the old CF
> >> application providing a RSS feed of all changes to all entries.
> >> https://commitfes
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I think you misunderstood me ;). I was talking about the old CF
>> application providing a RSS feed of all changes to all entries.
>> https://commitfest-old.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_activity.rss
> Oh, I di
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-01-20 11:05:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On 2015-01-19 21:57:20 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> >> The new site has been deployed and should now be
On 2015-01-20 11:05:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2015-01-19 21:57:20 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> The new site has been deployed and should now be usable.
> >
> > I think this unfortunately lost the RSS featur
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2015-01-19 21:57:20 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> The new site has been deployed and should now be usable.
>
> I think this unfortunately lost the RSS feature? I found that quite
> useful to see who changed what recently (it's
Hi,
On 2015-01-19 21:57:20 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> The new site has been deployed and should now be usable.
I think this unfortunately lost the RSS feature? I found that quite
useful to see who changed what recently (it's forwared to an imap
mailbox for me...).
What I'm also missing from
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Robert Haas
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Magnus Hagander
>> > wrote:
>> >> The new site has been deployed and should now be us
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> >> The new site has been deployed and should now be usable.
> >
> > There are, for some reason, three copies of "Clarify n
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > The new site has been deployed and should now be usable.
>
> There are, for some reason, three copies of "Clarify need for memory
> barriers in bgworkers" in the in-progress CF.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Magnus Hagander
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Magnus Hagander
>> wrote:
>> > The new site has been deployed and should now be usable.
>> >
>> > The old site is still available in readonly m
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> The new site has been deployed and should now be usable.
>
> There are, for some reason, three copies of "Clarify need for memory
> barriers in bgworkers" in the in-progress CF. I don
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> The new site has been deployed and should now be usable.
There are, for some reason, three copies of "Clarify need for memory
barriers in bgworkers" in the in-progress CF. I don't know why that
happened, or how to fix it.
Also, the old a
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > The new site has been deployed and should now be usable.
> >
> > The old site is still available in readonly mode at
> > https://commitfest-old.postgresql.org/.
>
> These links, w
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> The new site has been deployed and should now be usable.
>
> The old site is still available in readonly mode at
> https://commitfest-old.postgresql.org/.
These links, which were originally requested by Tom and which I have
bookmarked, use
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > Further status updates to come as we start working on it...
>
> Things are looking good so far. All the information has been synced up
> between both apps for the current CF an
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Further status updates to come as we start working on it...
Things are looking good so far. All the information has been synced up
between both apps for the current CF and the next one. One the switch
is done, I would recommend to each pat
Hi!
Last I said something about the new CF app I said I was planning to deploy
it over the holidays, and that clearly did not happen.
But I've been talking to Michael, as the current cf-chief, and doing some
further testing with it, and we think now is a good time to go for it :) As
the plan is t
82 matches
Mail list logo
