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
>>>> application/rejection.
>>>>
>>>> I'd hasten to add that none of those are mine. My patches have received
>>>> good attention, so I'm not complaining just completing admin.
>>> You might remember months ago that people were complaining I was pushing
>>> things into CVS too quickly, so while the patches are in my mailbox,
>>> they are not in the queue until I feel the community has the time to
>>> focus on it.
>> So, there's a queue of patches in your mailbox waiting to get to the
>> queue? A queue to the queue :). All the patches clearly need review, so
>> let's not rush them into the CVS, but it'd be nice to have them all in
>> one queue.
>
> 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.
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
what's in it?
>> Ps. I agree with the later comments that the naming of the two patch
>> queues is a bit confusing. Having queues named after the release numbers
>> the patches are targeted for seems like a good idea.
>
> OK, naming suggestions?
The "8.3 patch queue", and the "8.4 patch queue"?
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com