From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: new commitfest transition guidance |
Date: | 2025-02-27 16:07:14 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaePyRTmFH6N-PVEPUedrjy87T2qCmgByO42kbrSM80EA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:17 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> CF 2025-03 is to begin in more or less 48 hours, and we have still a
> grand total of 72 patches still listed in CF 2025-01:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/51/
>
> It's a good score, as 286 patches have been moved without doing any
> kind of massive bulky and manual vacuum work on all these entries.
>
> As these have not been moved by their respective authors and/or
> reviewers, perhaps, based on the guidance I am reading from this
> thread, it would be time to give up on these rather than move them
> around?
I mean, for now, yes. The authors may show up later and move them and
that's fine, we can consider them when they're actually moved. It
doesn't have to be that those patches are 100% dead, never to be
considered again.
But let's not make the mistake of saying "we're not going to move
things automatically because we want to find out if the authors are
still interested" and then getting really concerned when some stuff
doesn't get moved. That's missing the whole point.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2025-02-27 16:08:04 | Re: Log connection establishment timings |
Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-02-27 16:02:14 | Re: Doc: clarify possibility of ephemeral discrepancies between state and wait_event in pg_stat_activity |