| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Feature freeze progress report |
| Date: | 2007-05-01 15:26:03 |
| Message-ID: | 46375C0B.9050305@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The bottom line is if you had a system that was 100% perfect in
> capturing all information about a patch, it only helps us 2% toward
> reviewing the patch, and what is the cost of keeping 100% information?
2% for you or Tom reviewing a recently discussed, run-of-the mill patch.
I suspect that %age will rise as the patch complexity increases and the
reviewers experience decreases - which is exactly the situation that it
would help to improve.
Also note that I'm not saying I can produce a system that's 100% correct
- just one that will capture the posts that keep the patch ID in their
subject line *automatically* - meaning you don't have to worry about
keeping threads for the existing queue or tracking the patch status.
Regards Dave
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-01 15:33:17 | Another problem with result type selection in inline_function |
| Previous Message | Marc Munro | 2007-05-01 15:22:50 | Re: Feature freeze progress report |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-05-01 16:43:19 | Re: Feature freeze progress report |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-05-01 14:52:25 | Re: Feature freeze progress report |