Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 13:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In my mind this is just a clearer statement of what the policy always
>> was ;-). The patch review/application load was never supposed to fall
>> entirely on Bruce. The list he maintains is just there to ensure that
>> nothing slips through the cracks.
> Sounds good. Before I apply a patch from -patches, I send a mail saying
> "I intend to apply the patch in xyz hours", or the like. Is the presence
> of the patch on Bruce's pending patches list sufficient notice that it
> is going to be applied, or should I send mail in this case as well?
I think if it was posted to -patches more than a day or so ago, and
there's been no objection, that that in itself is sufficient notice.
Bruce's patch queue is there to catch stuff that didn't get picked up
on right away --- it's not meant as a filtering mechanism, but as a
let's-not-forget-this mechanism.
Of course, this still assumes that you (or any other committer) will
review what you apply before you apply it. Lack of objection probably
only means that no one sees a gross problem with the idea of the patch,
not that everyone's gone over it with a fine-tooth comb. I think the
person who applies a patch is responsible for having given it a
reasonably careful line-by-line review. (If you see any points you're
not sure about, by all means ask for backup --- you don't have to do it
alone.)
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
