From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CommitFest rules |
Date: | 2008-07-03 22:16:38 |
Message-ID: | 937d27e10807031516s1303ceaeq87553ee1d7ba205f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Are you suggesting that omission of a patch on the 'fest' page means
>> that you are bumped from the fest?
>
> No, if you had submitted the patch on time then the correct next step
> is to get it added to the fest page; I don't think that should be
> controversial. But the reviewers aren't gonna review it if it's not
> listed on that page...
Right, but the author should take some responsibility for ensuring the
patch is listed on time. What we don't want is forgotten patches
getting added at the last minute, right as the CommitFest manager is
wrapping things up having got 95% of the patches reviewed and the
other 5% in progress.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-03 22:47:51 | Re: the un-vacuumable table |
Previous Message | Andrew Hammond | 2008-07-03 22:16:32 | Re: the un-vacuumable table |