Re: ProcessUtility_hook
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: ProcessUtility_hook |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 16534.1259634299@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: ProcessUtility_hook (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: ProcessUtility_hook
Re: ProcessUtility_hook |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> So, if someone writes a patch, and it is reviewed, and the patch author
> updates the patch and replies, it still should be reviewed again before
> being committed?
Well, that's for the reviewer to say --- if the update satisfies his
concerns, he should sign off on it, if not not. I've tried to avoid
pre-empting that process.
> Also, we are two weeks into the commit fest and we have more unapplied
> patches than applied ones.
Yup. Lots of unfinished reviews out there. Robert spent a good deal
of effort in the last two fests trying to light fires under reviewers;
do you want to take up that cudgel? I think wholesale commits of things
that haven't finished review is mostly going to send a signal that the
review process doesn't matter, which is *not* the signal I think we
should send.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: