>> The reviewing that happened during this CommitFest did not happen on >> the basis of who was interested in which patches. There was a bit of >> that, but for the most part people reviewed the patches that they were >> asked to review. I assumed (am I the only one?) that the REASON why >> we were not asked to review SE-PostgreSQL or Hot Standby is because >> the committers were planning to do that themselves due to the >> complexity of the patches. > > Actually, I did assign someone to do a build and specification review. But > yes, I expected that the code review would *have* to be done by a long-term > committer. I pretty much assume that of anything over 300 lines. > > The idea behind having new reviewers take on all the small patches, was, of > course, to give the main committers more time with patches like SEPostgres. > It worked with other stuff (like Windowing and CTE).
Right, so, then I'm not sure why Tom is taking the lack of review as a sign of lack of interest. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
