| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Naz Gassiep <naz(at)mira(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: Feature freeze progress report |
| Date: | 2007-05-01 14:57:22 |
| Message-ID: | 46375552.9060000@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Naz Gassiep wrote:
> I believe the suggestion was to have an automated process that only ran
> on known, sane patches.
>
How do we know in advance of reviewing them that they are sane?
What is more, we often run into situations where patch a will require
changes in patch b, so testing them individually against CVS is not
likely to be terribly useful.
Frankly, our problems are not primarily technological. They have to do
mainly with scarcity of available time from competent reviewers. No
amount of automation will fix that.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc Munro | 2007-05-01 15:22:50 | Re: Feature freeze progress report |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-05-01 14:56:00 | Re: Heap page diagnostic functions |