| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commit fest 2022-11 |
| Date: | 2022-11-03 11:58:03 |
| Message-ID: | Y2Osy6HAK36NASG2@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 06:48:34PM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> I am wondering what the best thing to do with cases like this is:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/40/3977/
>
> where there were multiple patches in the original post, and some but not all
> were applied - so those ones are now failing to apply in the cfbot. Should we
> request the author to update the thread with those patches which are
> still pending?
A case-by-case analysis is usually adapted, but if subject is not over
yet, and only a portion of the patches have been addressed, keeping it
around is the best course of action IMO. The author and/or reviewer
may decide otherwise later on, or the patch could always be revisited
at the end of the CF and marked as committed, though it would be good
to update the thread to reflect that. By experience, it does not
happen that often.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2022-11-03 12:19:07 | Re: Incorrect include file order in guc-file.l |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-11-03 11:55:05 | Re: Allow file inclusion in pg_hba and pg_ident files |