On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-03-10 06:14:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> IMO, during a review one needs to think of himself as a committer.
>> Once the reviewer switches the patch to "Ready for committer", it
>> means that the last version of the patch presen
On 2016-03-10 06:14:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> IMO, during a review one needs to think of himself as a committer.
> Once the reviewer switches the patch to "Ready for committer", it
> means that the last version of the patch present would have been the
> version that gained the right to be
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 9 March 2016 at 07:18, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> Many of "needs review" state patches already have reviewer(s). Do you
>>> mean we want more reviewers in addition to them for such patches
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 9 March 2016 at 07:18, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Many of "needs review" state patches already have reviewer(s). Do you
>> mean we want more reviewers in addition to them for such patches?
>
> Yeah. Personally I'm not too confident about what p
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> It's hard to miss the fact that there are an absolutely breathtaking
>> number of patches in this CommitFest - 80! - that are in the "needs
>> review" state. We really, really, really need more review to happen -
>
> Many of "needs review" st
On 2016-03-09 08:18:09 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > It's hard to miss the fact that there are an absolutely breathtaking
> > number of patches in this CommitFest - 80! - that are in the "needs
> > review" state. We really, really, really need more review to happen -
>
> Many of "needs review" s
On 9 March 2016 at 07:18, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> Many of "needs review" state patches already have reviewer(s). Do you
> mean we want more reviewers in addition to them for such patches?
>
Yeah. Personally I'm not too confident about what precisely is required to
move a patch from needs-review
> It's hard to miss the fact that there are an absolutely breathtaking
> number of patches in this CommitFest - 80! - that are in the "needs
> review" state. We really, really, really need more review to happen -
Many of "needs review" state patches already have reviewer(s). Do you
mean we want m
Robert Haas writes:
> Unique Joins - This patch has had a lot of review and discussion. It
> would be best if Tom Lane looked at it.
Yeah, I'll pick it up soon. I've basically been kicking as much as
I could down the road for the last couple of months, trying to get the
pathification changes do
On 03/08/2016 02:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, so I made a pass through the "Ready for Committer" patches in the
> current CF. One I committed, several I replied to the thread with
> review comments and set back to "Waiting on Author". Here's where we
> are with the rest:
> plpgsql - possibilit
OK, so I made a pass through the "Ready for Committer" patches in the
current CF. One I committed, several I replied to the thread with
review comments and set back to "Waiting on Author". Here's where we
are with the rest:
Silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions - It looks to me
like A
11 matches
Mail list logo
