Re: commitfest 2016-11 status summary

From: Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: commitfest 2016-11 status summary
Date: 2016-12-05 05:50:39
Message-ID: CAJrrPGcGcKz4W5-pvROad41WTwQQEPPv6iikP7z24qSRYRjn+Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi All,

The commitfest status summary at the end of commitfest.

Needs review: 0
Waiting on author: 0
Ready for Commiter: 0
Commited: 41
Moved to next CF: 79
Rejected: 7
Returned with feedback: 20
TOTAL: 147

Overall progress of completion - 46% (doesn't include "moved to next CF")

Micheal, I need your help in closing the commitfest.

I closed the commitfest using the following assumptions.

Moved to next CF with needs review.
1. patch doesn't receive any full review in the commitfest
2. Patch received feedback at the end of commitfest.

Moved to next CF with waiting on author:
1. Patch doesn't apply to HEAD, but didn't receive any feedback.

Returned with feedback:
1. Patch received feedback, but author hasn't responded yet.
2. Author is expected to share an updated patch.

Rejected:
1. Any -1 from committer to the approach of the patch

May be these assumptions needs to be updated, as this is the first
time as CFM for me.

As I observed many patches that are keep on moving to next CF from previous
patches, is there any way in commitfest that can highlight those patches,
so that
those patches gets the review first than the patches that are came late to
the
commitfest.

I definitely may missed judging the current state of the patch. Please feel
free to
update the actual status.

Thanks everyone.

Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Haribabu Kommi 2016-12-05 05:55:11 Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2016-12-05 05:42:59 Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers