| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest infrastructure (was Re: 8.4 release planning) |
| Date: | 2009-01-29 18:25:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1233253508.20951.81.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 10:18 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> Thing is, our review/commit process is so peculiar to our project that
> using *any* prebuilt solution would require us to change our process to
> support the tool. And I can't imagine this group doing that.
I am not sure I agree with this.
Someone submits patch
ticket is created
reviewer takes ticket
comments
submitter takes ticket
fixes based on comments
review takes ticket
approves
if reviewer is a committers, he commits.
if reviewer isn't he set the ticket to "need final review"
tickets that are in that state are reviewed by commiters.
Sounds like standard stuff to me.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> --Josh
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-01-29 18:35:12 | Re: Hot standby, recovery infra |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-01-29 18:18:28 | Re: Commitfest infrastructure (was Re: 8.4 release planning) |