| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.4 release planning |
| Date: | 2009-01-27 05:06:29 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070901262106y489474d4t11d8992124444cd5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> SEPostgres seems qualitatively different to me, though. I think PG
> people have avoided reviewing it because (a) they weren't interested in
> it and (b) they knew they were unqualified to review it.
I think that you are off-base here. As I've pointed out previously,
nobody was ever ASSIGNED to review SE-PostgreSQL.
The reviewing that happened during this CommitFest did not happen on
the basis of who was interested in which patches. There was a bit of
that, but for the most part people reviewed the patches that they were
asked to review. I assumed (am I the only one?) that the REASON why
we were not asked to review SE-PostgreSQL or Hot Standby is because
the committers were planning to do that themselves due to the
complexity of the patches.
Now, apparently, that assumption was totally wrong. But this doesn't
seem complicated to me. If we bump SE-PostgreSQL to the next
CommitFest and assign reviewers, they will review it. Maybe their
review will not be 100% perfect, but that is why we have committers.
If we continue to NOT assign reviewers, reviewers are unlikely to
crawl out of the woodwork, just as they (mostly) didn't crawl out of
the woodwork for any other patches (HS/SR being a notable exception).
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-27 05:25:56 | Re: SE-PostgreSQL Updated Revision (r1460) |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-01-27 04:59:28 | Re: 8.4 release planning |