Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > So, if someone writes a patch, and it is reviewed, and the patch author > > updates the patch and replies, it still should be reviewed again before > > being committed? > > Well, that's for the reviewer to say --- if the update satisfies his > concerns, he should sign off on it, if not not. I've tried to avoid > pre-empting that process.
OK, so the reviewer knows he has to reply to the author's comments, OK. > > Also, we are two weeks into the commit fest and we have more unapplied > > patches than applied ones. > > Yup. Lots of unfinished reviews out there. Robert spent a good deal > of effort in the last two fests trying to light fires under reviewers; > do you want to take up that cudgel? I think wholesale commits of things I am afraid I am then duplicating work the commit fest manager is doing, and if someone is bugged by me and the CF manager, they might get upset. > that haven't finished review is mostly going to send a signal that the > review process doesn't matter, which is *not* the signal I think we > should send. True. Maybe I am best focusing on open issues like the threading and psql -1 patches I worked on today. There is certainly enough of that stuff to keep me busy. I thought I could help with the commit fest load, but now I am unsure. That non-commit-fest stuff has to be done too so maybe managing that will help. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> 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