| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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 15:32:01 |
| Message-ID: | 3691402.1633188721@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2021-Oct-02, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. I have been thinking of looking through the oldest CF entries
>> and proposing that we just reject any that look permanently stalled.
> I was just going to say the same thing yesterday, and reference [1]
> when I did it once in 2019. I think it was a useful cleanup exercise.
> [1] https://postgr.es/m/20190930182818.GA25331@alvherre.pgsql
Right. Michael and Jaime have been doing some of that too in the last
few days, but obviously a CFM should only do that unilaterally in very
clear-cut cases of patch abandonment. I was intending to go after some
where maybe a bit of community consensus is needed for rejection.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-10-02 15:41:54 | Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-02 15:24:52 | Re: 2021-09 Commitfest |