Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Based on my observations, there's basically three different workflows a > patch can follow (assuming the patch gets committed in the end): > > Workflow A: > > 1. You post patch to pgsql-patches > 2. a committer picks it up immediately, and commits it. > > Workflow B: > > 1. You post a patch to pgsql-patches > 2. You add a link to the wiki page of the next commit fest > 3. A committer picks up the patch from the wiki page, and commits it > > Workflow C: > > 1. You post a patch to pgsql-patches > 2. Bruce adds the patch to the unapplied patches queue after a while > 3. At the beginning of the next commit fest, Alvaro (with the help from > others, I hope) goes through the patches queue, and puts a link to the > wiki page of the next commit fest > 4. A committer picks up the patch from the wiki page, and commits it
Yep, that's pretty accurate. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
