Re: [BUGS] BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > > We lost this patch for the October commitfest, didn't we?
> >
> > I'm guessing you missed that a new version just got submitted..?
>
> Which one, reindex schema? Isn't that a completely different patch?

Err, sorry, wasn't looking close enough, evidently. :/

> > I'd be fine with today's being added to the october commitfest..
> >
> > Of course, there's a whole independent discussion to be had about how
> > there wasn't any break between last commitfest and this one, but that
> > probably deserves its own thread.
>
> It's not the first that that happens, and honestly I don't see all that
> much cause for concern. Heikki did move pending patches to the current
> one, and closed a lot of inactive ones as 'returned with feedback'.

Inactive due to lack of review is the concern, but there is also a
concern that it's intended as a way to ensure committers have time to
work on their own patches instead of just working on patches submitted
through the commitfest process. Now, I think we all end up trying to
balance making progress on our own patches while also providing help to
the commitfest, but that's the situation we were in constantly before
the commitfest process was put in place because it didn't scale very
well.

If we're always in 'commitfest' mode then we might as well eliminate the
notion of timing them.

> Attentive patch authors should have submitted new versions ... if they
> don't, then someone else with an interest in the patch should do so.
> If no one update the patches, what do we want them for?

As for this, sure, if there's a review and no response then it's fair to
mark the patch as returned with feedback. The issue is both when no
patch gets a review and when the commitfest never ends.

Thanks,

Stephen