| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2022-01 Commitfest |
| Date: | 2022-02-06 06:49:50 |
| Message-ID: | Yf9vjvq//EEnE0XB@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:00:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Agreed, we're not here to cause make-work for submitters. RWF is
> appropriate if the patch has been in Waiting On Author for awhile
> and doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but otherwise we should
> just punt it to the next CF.
FWIW, I just apply a two-week rule here, as of half the commit fest
period to let people the time to react:
- If a patch has been waiting on author since the 15th of January,
mark it as RwF.
- If it has been left as waiting on author after the 15th of January,
move it to the next CF.
> Anyway, thanks to Julien for doing this mostly-thankless task
> this time!
+1.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-02-06 06:52:08 | Re: Ensure that STDERR is empty during connect_ok |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-02-06 06:46:19 | Re: pg_receivewal - couple of improvements |