Re: Releasing in September

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Josh Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Releasing in September
Date: 2016-01-20 18:16:29
Message-ID: 20160120181629.GI26711@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016-01-20 13:03:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I am not sure what exactly ought to be different about them [small
> patches], but probably something should. I think for small patches,
> we are using the CF app mostly to be sure things don't fall through
> the cracks, but maybe we don't need the whole process otherwise.

Aren't we already treating them differently on an ad-hoc basis? Several
committers fast-track such patches through the process. We could mark
them differently in the CF app, but I'm not sure what we'd want to
achieve by doing that. Such small patches are frequently enough
buggy. Committers can most of the time can easily polish them up, but
that still takes time; so I think tests/reviews of those are still
worthwhile.

So the only real difference I see an explicit difference would make is
making it easier to spot such patches when looking for an easy thing to
commit, and to make life for the commitfest manager easier. Not sure if
such a labeling would save more time than doing the labeling itself
would cost.

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-01-20 18:29:29 Re: Releasing in September
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-01-20 18:13:29 Re: Releasing in September