| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2021-09 Commitfest |
| Date: | 2021-10-03 07:15:45 |
| Message-ID: | YVlYoYWuHI1ajGc9@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 02, 2021 at 11:32:01AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Right. Michael and Jaime have been doing some of that too in the last
> few days, but obviously a CFM should only do that unilaterally in very
> clear-cut cases of patch abandonment. I was intending to go after some
> where maybe a bit of community consensus is needed for rejection.
One thing I have used in this process is what I'd call the two-week
rule: if a patch is listed in the CF app as waiting on author for two
weeks at the middle of the CF, and if it has stalled with the same
state by the end of the commit fest with the thread remaining idle, it
is rather safe to switch the patch as returned with feedback. I have
tried to follow this rule for the last couple of years and received
few complains when done this way. The CF patch tester has proved to
be really helpful regarding that, even if some patches have sometimes
a state in the CF app that does not reflect what the thread tells. In
short, it is important to check the state of the patches mid-CF
pinging the related threads if necessary, and at the end of the CF.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2021-10-03 10:23:33 | Re: 2021-09 Commitfest |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-10-03 07:03:59 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set |