On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 02:38:54AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:14:06PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > That appears to not be mentioned in a comment, the commit message or the
> > the docs. I think this definitely needs to be prominently documented.
>
> [Action required within 72 hours. This is a generic notification.]
>
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Kevin,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> 9.6 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this
> message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1. Consequently, I will appreciate your
> efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
>
> [1]
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com
This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
