Re: fun with "Ready for Committer" patches

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: fun with "Ready for Committer" patches
Date: 2016-03-09 21:14:25
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRA7mWXEE5X9naatoPvYvdnSKW_db1a+Ypa_vrz48sWfQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 9 March 2016 at 07:18, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>>> Many of "needs review" state patches already have reviewer(s). Do you
>>> mean we want more reviewers in addition to them for such patches?
>>
>> Yeah. Personally I'm not too confident about what precisely is required to
>> move a patch from needs-review to ready-for-committer. I've done a chunk of
>> review for a number of patches, but I'm not always confident saying "all
>> clear, proceed".
>
> I think that if you've done your best to review it, and you don't see
> any remaining problems, you should mark it Ready for Committer.

IMO, during a review one needs to think of himself as a committer.
Once the reviewer switches the patch to "Ready for committer", it
means that the last version of the patch present would have been the
version that gained the right to be pushed.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-03-09 21:19:29 Re: fun with "Ready for Committer" patches
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2016-03-09 20:38:07 Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.