From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: CommitFest rules |
Date: | 2008-07-05 22:10:16 |
Message-ID: | 200807051810.16631.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 03 July 2008 18:16:38 Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> Are you suggesting that omission of a patch on the 'fest' page means
> >> that you are bumped from the fest?
> >
> > No, if you had submitted the patch on time then the correct next step
> > is to get it added to the fest page; I don't think that should be
> > controversial. But the reviewers aren't gonna review it if it's not
> > listed on that page...
>
> Right, but the author should take some responsibility for ensuring the
> patch is listed on time. What we don't want is forgotten patches
> getting added at the last minute, right as the CommitFest manager is
> wrapping things up having got 95% of the patches reviewed and the
> other 5% in progress.
>
I think people are still working there way through the process, but it's
starting to sound like submitting a patch involves two steps from now on;
email to the list, and add your patch to the next commitfest page. Does that
sound right?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2008-07-05 22:15:00 | Re: WITH RECURSIVE updated to CVS TIP |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2008-07-05 22:07:46 | Re: CommitFest rules |