On 16 July 2012 01:16, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
We are now at the end of the originally scheduled one-month window for
the June commitfest. While the numbers look fairly bad:
Needs Review: 17, Waiting on Author: 10, Ready for Committer: 3, Committed:
29, Returned with Feedback:
Trim trailing NULL columns
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=840
Feh, put my name on this one for a performance test/functionality
review. Someone else needs to do the code review though.
None of the three above seem to me to be blocking further work,
so I don't have a
We are now at the end of the originally scheduled one-month window for
the June commitfest. While the numbers look fairly bad:
Needs Review: 17, Waiting on Author: 10, Ready for Committer: 3, Committed: 29,
Returned with Feedback: 12, Rejected: 5. Total: 76.
it's not quite a complete disaster,
At this point we could move the open items to the September fest and
call this one good, or we could keep trying to close things out.
Personally I'd like to do the former, because we really need to spend
some effort on closing out the various open issues for 9.2, and the
commitfest seems to
Which three patches didn't get any review?
Or to be more specific: I'm in favor of closing out everything which has
had some review. I think the three patches without any review should be
dealt with case-by-case.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via
On 16 July 2012 01:16, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
At this point we could move the open items to the September fest and
call this one good, or we could keep trying to close things out.
Personally I'd like to do the former, because we really need to spend
some effort on closing out the
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Which three patches didn't get any review?
Or to be more specific: I'm in favor of closing out everything which has
had some review. I think the three patches without any review should be
dealt with case-by-case.
Well, I might be wrong, but the ones
