On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dfonta...@hi-media.com> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dfonta...@hi-media.com> >> wrote: >>> In case I'm not clear, what I'm saying is that I think we can consider >>> the writable CTE patch ready for commit even though we still have to >>> decide what its impacts on documentation should be. >> >> Whether a patch is ready to commit will be up to the committer > > "Ready for Committer" is what I though but failed to type.
*shrug* Same issue, to some degree. For a patch of this size, the difference between "Needs Review" and "Ready for Committer" is maybe somewhat less than normal. My point is just that I think there is work that can be usefully done on this patch by people other than Tom, even though I believe that ultimately Tom will have to make the call on whether it goes in. I don't think that should cause Tom to put off looking at it himself, but neither do I think that anyone else should feel like we've accomplished something by labelling it Ready for Committer. I'm disappointed that we marked this RfC so early in the cycle without catching the docs issue; Marko could have started working on that much sooner if we'd given him that feedback. Let's not take our eye off the ball again. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
