From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) |
Cc: | darcy(at)druid(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Patches |
Date: | 1999-01-31 18:38:19 |
Message-ID: | 199901311838.NAA05321@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I don't think multiple queues per se are a problem; the deficiency I see
> in our patching procedures is lack of visibility of the status of a
> proposed patch. If it's not been applied, is it just because no one
> has gotten to it yet, or was there an objection from someone? What's
> worse is that one of the people with commit access might miss or forget
> about such an objection, and commit a bogus patch anyway sometime later.
> We have enough committers now that I think there's a definite risk here.
>
> If we wanted to be really organized about this, it'd be cool to have
> a central database with an item for each proposed patch and links to
> followup discussions. But I'm not sure it's worth the work it would
> take to set it up and then maintain the entries. Unless we get badly
> bitten by a mistake that such a database would've prevented, it probably
> won't happen ...
I keep them in my mailbox, delete them if there is objection or someone
else applies it. Eventually, I apply it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-01-31 18:57:54 | Re: [HACKERS] nested loops in joins, ambiguous rewrite rules |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-01-31 18:00:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Reducing sema usage (was Postmaster dies with many child processes) |