| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest 2023-09 starts soon |
| Date: | 2023-09-05 11:55:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TNAzgH_hZ-fV1_iKaLDv1=bHab63P23k1oOVPbo2Dd9pg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
> I think it would be better to just remove the "consensus" part of your
> mail, and just put down the real reason why each patch is being RfC-ed
> or rejected. That is, don't imply that there are hackers that OK-ed it
> when there are none, and inform patch authors directly about the
> reasons why the patch is being revoked; so without "see consensus in
> [0]".
That's fair enough. I will use "It's been decided" or something like
this next time to avoid any confusion.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2023-09-05 12:06:14 | Re: pg_basebackup: Always return valid temporary slot names |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-09-05 11:50:24 | Re: Autogenerate some wait events code and documentation |