On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:33:38AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Someone (you, I think) advocated a '3 weeks and then dump the rest of the
patches' (not quote as strong of wording, but similar) ... why not split the
patches list up:
submitted patches, not reviewed
reviewed patches,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:36:42 -0500 Jim C. Nasby
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:33:38AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Someone (you, I think) advocated a '3 weeks and then dump the rest of the
patches' (not quote
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 16:33:32 -0700 Joshua D. Drake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the developers were to actually take a step back and say, Hey... instead
of working on these dozen different features, I should
If people want proof that we have had some patches for months, this
email is from Simon from January, 2007.
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 19:04 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I will start processing the
Bruce Momjian wrote:
If people want proof that we have had some patches for months, this
email is from Simon from January, 2007.
I don't think anyone (at least sanely) questions that there are patches
hanging out there.
Joshua D. Drake
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
If people want proof that we have had some patches for months, this
email is from Simon from January, 2007.
I don't think anyone (at least sanely) questions that there are patches
hanging out there.
My point is that pushing them for 8.4
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
If people want proof that we have had some patches for months, this
email is from Simon from January, 2007.
I don't think anyone (at least sanely) questions that there are patches
hanging out there.
My point is that pushing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 16:33:32 -0700 Joshua D. Drake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the developers were to actually take a step back and say, Hey... instead
of working on these dozen different features, I should work on three and help
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 04:56:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am open to new names.
patches-8_3 ? Anything coming in after FF then goes to patches-8_4.
The problem there is that the web site references these, so changing the
URL for every release is odd, plus right now both queues
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
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
The latter does not exist, AFAIK. Before feature freeze for cycle X, we
don't usually hold patches for release X+1, as I understand it.
In general, we should try to hold patches as little amount of time as
possible. That way they don't
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The hold queue has patches that still need discussion, or ideas for
patches, so it is more than just patches ready for application, and
moving the whole thing at once would overwhelm patch reviewers.
So why aren't all patches that are posted to the -patches list in the
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The hold queue has patches that still need discussion, or ideas for
patches, so it is more than just patches ready for application, and
moving the whole thing at once would overwhelm patch reviewers.
So why aren't all patches that are posted
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The hold queue has patches that still need discussion, or ideas for
patches, so it is more than just patches ready for application, and
moving the whole thing at once would overwhelm patch reviewers.
So why aren't
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So why aren't all patches that are posted to the -patches list in the
hold queue?
I think the really short answer to this is that Bruce is behind on
processing the patches list.
regards, tom lane
---(end
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So why aren't all patches that are posted to the -patches list in the
hold queue?
I think the really short answer to this is that Bruce is behind on
processing the patches list.
Probably. :-(
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL
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
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.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
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.
Isn't that always the case though, not just after FF when the hold queue
starts getting activity again?
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
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I'm confused,
So I see.
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
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
The latter does not exist, AFAIK. Before feature freeze for cycle X, we
don't usually hold patches for release X+1, as I understand it.
In general, we should try to hold patches as little amount of time as
possible. That way they don't go stale as easily.
I did not
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
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
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
Hi Bruce,
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 11:35 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, naming suggestions?
BTW, why do you keep those pages in your homepage, but not in
postgresql.org? Just wondering.
--and personally, I'd prefer to see them in
On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 16:29 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The issue is that the _hold_ patches are for patches that arrived after
feature freeze. The patches that arrived after 8.2 was released don't
go in there because it might cause confusion.
Right, which is why I'm pointing it out; they
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The problem there is that the web site references these, so changing the
URL for every release is odd,
Not a problem though - it's trivial for us to update whatever webpages
link to it.
plus right now both queues are for 8.3.
Well, yeah - that's why it's
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 19:04 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I will start processing the patches held for 8.3 this week or next, now
that the holiday break is over:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
The following patches don't appear on this list:
Concurrent psql
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
Simon Riggs wrote:
I'm not clear about the difference between the unapplied patches list
and the hold list. What is the significance of the two lists?
There's a number of patches submitted to pgsql-patches that don't show
up on either list. I haven't made a list of these, but they include
On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 10:56 -0500, 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.
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 10:56 -0500, 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
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The issue is that the _hold_ patches are for patches that arrived after
feature freeze. The patches that arrived after 8.2 was released don't
go in there because it might cause confusion. I also have to control
how quickly I push out patches from the queue so as not to
Dave Page wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The issue is that the _hold_ patches are for patches that arrived after
feature freeze. The patches that arrived after 8.2 was released don't
go in there because it might cause confusion. I also have to control
how quickly I push out patches from
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The issue is that the _hold_ patches are for patches that arrived after
feature freeze. The patches that arrived after 8.2 was released don't
go in there because it might cause confusion. I also have to control
how quickly I push out
Dave Page wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The issue is that the _hold_ patches are for patches that arrived after
feature freeze. The patches that arrived after 8.2 was released don't
go in there because it might cause confusion. I also have to
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 19:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I will start processing the patches held for 8.3 this week or next, now
that the holiday break is over:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
Some of these
Simon Riggs wrote:
I'm not clear about the difference between the unapplied patches list
and the hold list. What is the significance of the two lists?
AIUI, the hold list is those patches providing new features that were
held over between 8.2 feature freeze and 8.2 branch. Since they have
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I'm not clear about the difference between the unapplied patches list
and the hold list. What is the significance of the two lists?
AIUI, the hold list is those patches providing new features that were
held
On 1/4/07, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That also happens. The only way I can see of ensuring it does not happen
would be to auto-process all patch submissions.
Sounds a good idea. Patch farm anyone? Auto apply/make check?
I'm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/4/07, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That also happens. The only way I can see of ensuring it does not
happen
would be to auto-process all patch submissions.
Sounds a good idea. Patch farm anyone?
On 1/4/07, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/4/07, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That also happens. The only way I can see of ensuring it does not
happen
would be to auto-process all patch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/4/07, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/4/07, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That also happens. The only way I can see of ensuring it does not
happen
would be
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I'm not clear about the difference between the unapplied patches list
and the hold list. What is the significance of the two lists?
AIUI, the hold list is those patches providing new features that were
held over between 8.2 feature freeze and
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I will start processing the patches held for 8.3 this week or next, now
that the holiday break is over:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
Some of these look obsolete. Also,
. the plperl out params patch needs substantial rework by its author,
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I will start processing the patches held for 8.3 this week or next, now
that the holiday break is over:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
Some of these look obsolete. Also,
. the plperl out params patch needs
45 matches
Mail list logo
