| From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: YAML Was: CommitFest status/management |
| Date: | 2009-12-07 06:54:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20091207155416.9542.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It was written and submitted by one person who did not bother to ask
> first whether anyone else thought it was worthwhile. So its presence
> on the CF list should not be taken as evidence that there's consensus
> for it.
Should we have "Needs Discussion" phase before "Needs Review" ?
Reviews, including me, think patches with needs-review status are
worthwhile. In contrast, contributers often register their patches
to CF without discussions just because of no response; they cannot
find whether no response is silent approval or not.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2009-12-07 07:32:35 | Re: bug: json format and auto_explain |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-07 06:46:36 | Re: bug: json format and auto_explain |