On 18 August 2010 22:45, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > At the close of the 2010-07 CommitFest, the numbers were: > > 72 patches were submitted > 3 patches were withdrawn (deleted) by their authors > 14 patches were moved to CommitFest 2010-09 > -- > 55 patches in CommitFest 2010-07 > -- > 3 committed to 9.0 > -- > 52 patches for 9.1 > -- > 1 rejected > 20 returned with feedback > 31 committed for 9.1 > > When we hit the end of the allotted time, I moved the last two > patches to the next CF, for want of a better idea for disposition. > One is "Ready for Committer" with an author who is a committer. The > other is my WiP patch for serializable transactions -- there's a lot > to review and the reviewer had unexpected demands on his time during > the CF; he said he'll continue work on that outside the CF. > > -Kevin > > > At the end of week four: > >> 72 patches were submitted >> 3 patches were withdrawn (deleted) by their authors >> 12 patches were moved to CommitFest 2010-09 >> -- >> 57 patches in CommitFest 2010-07 >> -- >> 3 committed to 9.0 >> -- >> 54 patches for 9.1 >> -- >> 1 rejected >> 18 returned with feedback >> 28 committed for 9.1 >> -- >> 47 disposed >> -- >> 7 pending >> 2 ready for committer >> -- >> 5 will still need reviewer attention >> 1 waiting on author to respond to review >> -- >> 4 patches need review now and have a reviewer assigned
So did the materialized views patch not get submitted? -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
