Re: [HACKERS] fun with "Ready for Committer" patches

2016-03-09 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: [HACKERS] fun with "Ready for Committer" patches

2016-03-09 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] fun with "Ready for Committer" patches

2016-03-09 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: [HACKERS] fun with "Ready for Committer" patches

2016-03-09 Thread Robert Haas
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.

Re: [HACKERS] fun with "Ready for Committer" patches

2016-03-09 Thread Robert Haas
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 - > >

Re: [HACKERS] fun with "Ready for Committer" patches

2016-03-08 Thread Andres Freund
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"

Re: [HACKERS] fun with "Ready for Committer" patches

2016-03-08 Thread Craig Ringer
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

Re: [HACKERS] fun with "Ready for Committer" patches

2016-03-08 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> 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

Re: [HACKERS] fun with "Ready for Committer" patches

2016-03-08 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] fun with "Ready for Committer" patches

2016-03-08 Thread Joe Conway
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 -