Re: Commitfest overflow

From: Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Commitfest overflow
Date: 2021-08-04 18:51:50
Message-ID: CALT9ZEEs+Jk_2ExFkX4XP-d73dmDsxqQ10m8nB=K+Aa4RJ848A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> I think there might be a higher number of work-in-progress patches
> these days, which represent ongoing collaborative efforts, and are not
> expected to be committed soon, but are registered to attract the
> attention of humans and robots. Perhaps if there were a separate
> status for that, it would be clearer. Or perhaps they don't belong in
> the "commit" fest.
>

I totally support this view on CF as a better way to track and process
ongoing community activity in the one place than the mailing list. The fact
is that complicated patches need many CFs to be reviewed, improved and
committed. I'd vote for not-so-strict approach to what should be on CF and
what should not. But probably some prioritization inside CF is indeed
needed.

--
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov

Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2021-08-04 19:01:10 Re: A varint implementation for PG?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2021-08-04 17:41:41 Re: A varint implementation for PG?