| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2021-09 Commitfest |
| Date: | 2021-10-02 14:52:08 |
| Message-ID: | 3689395.1633186328@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> That's the tricky part. It does not really make sense either to keep
> moving patches that are waiting on author for months. The scan of the
> CF app I have done was about those idle patches waiting on author for
> months. It takes time as authors and/or reviewers tend to sometimes
> not update the status of a patch so the state in the app does not
> reflect the reality, but this vacuuming limits the noise in for the
> next CFs.
Yeah. I have been thinking of looking through the oldest CF entries
and proposing that we just reject any that look permanently stalled.
It doesn't do much good to leave things in the list when there's
no apparent interest in pushing them to conclusion. But I've not
done the legwork yet, and I'm a little worried about the push-back
that will inevitably result.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-02 15:05:20 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-10-02 14:40:10 | Re: pgsql: Document XLOG_INCLUDE_XID a little better |