From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch queue triage |
Date: | 2007-05-02 06:08:40 |
Message-ID: | 2e78013d0705012308x4ca37071tbb1458a6dfa1e655@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/2/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>
>
> * [PATCHES] HOT Patch - Ready for review /Pavan Deolasee/
>
> This needs a *lot* of review. Can we break it down into more manageable
> chunks? I'm not sure that anyone's got a full grasp of the implications
> of this patch, and that's a scary thought.
Sure, we can do that. I actually did that when I posted the
incremental versions of the HOT-patch, each version implementing
the next big chunk of the code. I can reverse engineer that again.
When I do that, should I just break the patch into logical pieces without
worrying about whether each piece alone builds/works correcttly ?
Or should I try to make each piece complete ? I know the second
would be a preferred way, but it would be more work. But if that can
considerably ease review process, I would do that by all means.
In any case, there will be dependecies amongst the patches.
I am on leave today, so would start on this tomorrow.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2007-05-02 06:30:52 | Re: Patch queue triage |
Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-05-02 05:56:43 | Re: Patch queue triage |