2009/11/17 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Pavel Stehule wrote: >>> >>> I don't wont to apply these patches tomorrow, I don't sending these >>> patches for last moment. If I have to wait one weak or two weeks, ok. >>> Declare it. I'll respect it. But actually I respecting all rules, what >>> I know. >> >> If you're sending stuff intended for the next CommitFest in the middle of an >> active one (which we'd prefer not to see at all but you have your own >> schedule limitations), it would be helpful if you were to label those >> patches as such. It's difficult for the rest of us to tell which of the >> ones you're generating are in response to patches that are active during >> this one, and which are intended for future review but you're just dropping >> them off now. Had your new stuff been labeled "This is for the next >> CommitFest, I'm just sending it to the list now", it would have made it >> easier on everyone else to figure out which of your messages we need to pay >> attention to and what should be ignored for now. > > This expresses my feelings on the topic exactly, and perhaps merits > inclusion in a Wiki page someplace. Maybe we need to have a wiki page > on commitfest rules & expectations.
Ok, It's my mistake. I didn't would to attack anybody. I though so is sufficient information is registration in commitfest application. Patch in mailing list is one thing, but registration in second - crucial. And when commitfest is closed, then is clean, so new patches goes to next commitfest. I agree - It should frustrating - and it means some work more (for reades of mailing list). I have not a problem with labeling, when patch isn't used for current commitfest. Pavel > > ...Robert > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
