Marc G. Fournier wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 16:33:32 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the developers were to actually take a step back and say, "Hey... instead
of working on these dozen different features, I shoul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:36:42 -0500 "Jim C. Nasby"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:33:38AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> Someone (you, I think) advocated a '3 weeks and then dump the rest of the
>> patches' (no
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:33:38AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Someone (you, I think) advocated a '3 weeks and then dump the rest of the
> patches' (not quote as strong of wording, but similar) ... why not split the
> patches list up:
>
> submitted patches, not reviewed
> reviewed patches,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 16:33:32 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the developers were to actually take a step back and say, "Hey... instead
> of working on these dozen different features, I should work on three and help
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
If people want proof that we have had some patches for months, this
email is from Simon from January, 2007.
I don't think anyone (at least sanely) questions that there are patches
hanging out there.
My point is that pushing th
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > If people want proof that we have had some patches for months, this
> > email is from Simon from January, 2007.
> >
>
> I don't think anyone (at least sanely) questions that there are patches
> hanging out there.
My point is that pushing them fo
Bruce Momjian wrote:
If people want proof that we have had some patches for months, this
email is from Simon from January, 2007.
I don't think anyone (at least sanely) questions that there are patches
hanging out there.
Joshua D. Drake
---
If people want proof that we have had some patches for months, this
email is from Simon from January, 2007.
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 19:04 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I will start processing the
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So why aren't all patches that are posted to the -patches list in the
> > hold queue?
>
> I think the really short answer to this is that Bruce is behind on
> processing the patches list.
Probably. :-(
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So why aren't all patches that are posted to the -patches list in the
> hold queue?
I think the really short answer to this is that Bruce is behind on
processing the patches list.
regards, tom lane
---(e
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > > The hold queue has patches that still need discussion, or ideas for
> > > > patches, so it is more than just patches ready for application, and
> > > > moving the whole thing at once wou
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > The hold queue has patches that still need discussion, or ideas for
> > > patches, so it is more than just patches ready for application, and
> > > moving the whole thing at once would overwhelm patch reviewers.
> >
>
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > The hold queue has patches that still need discussion, or ideas for
> > patches, so it is more than just patches ready for application, and
> > moving the whole thing at once would overwhelm patch reviewers.
>
> So why aren't all patches that are
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The hold queue has patches that still need discussion, or ideas for
> patches, so it is more than just patches ready for application, and
> moving the whole thing at once would overwhelm patch reviewers.
So why aren't all patches that are posted to the -patches list in the
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
>
> > > I'm confused, I thought the difference between the pgpatches queue
> and
> > > the pgpatches_hold queue is the release the patch is targeted for.
> If
> > > there's a third queue for patches that need review before being
> added to
> > > another queue,
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> > The latter does not exist, AFAIK. Before feature freeze for cycle X, we
> > don't usually hold patches for release X+1, as I understand it.
> >
> > In general, we should try to hold patches as little amount of time as
> > possible. That way t
> > I'm confused, I thought the difference between the pgpatches queue
and
> > the pgpatches_hold queue is the release the patch is targeted for.
If
> > there's a third queue for patches that need review before being
added to
> > another queue, could we have that visible somewhere, so that we k
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 04:56:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > > I am open to new names.
>> >
>> > patches-8_3 ? Anything coming in after FF then goes to patches-8_4.
>>
>> The problem there is that the web site references these, so changing the
>> URL for every release i
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 04:56:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I am open to new names.
> >
> > patches-8_3 ? Anything coming in after FF then goes to patches-8_4.
>
> The problem there is that the web site references these, so changing the
> URL for every release is odd, plus right now both
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Hi Bruce,
>
> On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 11:35 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > OK, naming suggestions?
>
> BTW, why do you keep those pages in your homepage, but not in
> postgresql.org? Just wondering.
>
> --and personally, I'd prefer to see
Hi Bruce,
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 11:35 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, naming suggestions?
BTW, why do you keep those pages in your homepage, but not in
postgresql.org? Just wondering.
--and personally, I'd prefer to see them in our (PG) web page.
Regards,
--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> Simon Riggs wrote:
> All have been awaiting review for at least a month (though in one case
> the latest version is quite recent). They probably ought to be on the
> hold qu
Dave Page wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Right, because even the decision of whether they should be in the queue
> > is a decision for us. The hold queue additions are less stringent than
> > the main patch queue.
>
> Isn't that always the case though, not just after FF when the hold queue
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
The latter does not exist, AFAIK. Before feature freeze for cycle X, we
don't usually hold patches for release X+1, as I understand it.
In general, we should try to hold patches as little amount of time as
possible. That way they don't go stale as easily.
I did not follo
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I'm confused,
So I see.
> I thought the difference between the pgpatches queue and
> the pgpatches_hold queue is the release the patch is targeted for. If
> there's a third queue for patches that need review before being added to
> another queue, could we have that vi
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
All have been awaiting review for at least a month (though in one case
the latest version is quite recent). They probably ought to be on the
hold queue; all are ready to be reviewed for final
application/rej
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Right, because even the decision of whether they should be in the queue
> is a decision for us. The hold queue additions are less stringent than
> the main patch queue.
Isn't that always the case though, not just after FF when the hold queue
starts getting activity again?
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> All have been awaiting review for at least a month (though in one case
> >> the latest version is quite recent). They probably ought to be on the
> >> hold queue; all are ready to be reviewed for final
> >> application/rej
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
All have been awaiting review for at least a month (though in one case
the latest version is quite recent). They probably ought to be on the
hold queue; all are ready to be reviewed for final
application/rejection.
I'd hasten to add that none of those are
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The problem there is that the web site references these, so changing the
URL for every release is odd,
Not a problem though - it's trivial for us to update whatever webpages
link to it.
> plus right now both queues are for 8.3.
Well, yeah - that's why it's confusing
On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 16:29 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The issue is that the _hold_ patches are for patches that arrived after
> feature freeze. The patches that arrived after 8.2 was released don't
> go in there because it might cause confusion.
Right, which is why I'm pointing it out; they
Dave Page wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Dave Page wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> The issue is that the _hold_ patches are for patches that arrived after
> >>> feature freeze. The patches that arrived after 8.2 was released don't
> >>> go in there because it might cause confusion. I al
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The issue is that the _hold_ patches are for patches that arrived after
feature freeze. The patches that arrived after 8.2 was released don't
go in there because it might cause confusion. I also have to control
how quickly I push out
Dave Page wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The issue is that the _hold_ patches are for patches that arrived after
> > feature freeze. The patches that arrived after 8.2 was released don't
> > go in there because it might cause confusion. I also have to control
> > how quickly I push out patches
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The issue is that the _hold_ patches are for patches that arrived after
feature freeze. The patches that arrived after 8.2 was released don't
go in there because it might cause confusion. I also have to control
how quickly I push out patches from the queue so as not to over
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 10:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > All have been awaiting review for at least a month (though in one case
> > > the latest version is quite recent). They probably ought to be on the
> > > hold queue; all are ready to be reviewed
On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 10:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > All have been awaiting review for at least a month (though in one case
> > the latest version is quite recent). They probably ought to be on the
> > hold queue; all are ready to be reviewed for final
> > application/re
Simon Riggs wrote:
> I'm not clear about the difference between the unapplied patches list
> and the hold list. What is the significance of the two lists?
>
> There's a number of patches submitted to pgsql-patches that don't show
> up on either list. I haven't made a list of these, but they includ
Simon Riggs wrote:
> All have been awaiting review for at least a month (though in one case
> the latest version is quite recent). They probably ought to be on the
> hold queue; all are ready to be reviewed for final
> application/rejection.
>
> I'd hasten to add that none of those are mine. My pa
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 19:04 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I will start processing the patches held for 8.3 this week or next, now
> that the holiday break is over:
>
> http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
>
The following patches don't appear on this list:
Concurrent psql
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I'm not clear about the difference between the unapplied patches list
> > and the hold list. What is the significance of the two lists?
> >
>
> AIUI, the hold list is those patches providing new features that were
> held over between 8.2 feature f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/4/07, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 1/4/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> > That also happens. The only way I can see of ensuring it does not
>> happen
On 1/4/07, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 1/4/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> > That also happens. The only way I can see of ensuring it does not
>> happen
>> > would be to auto-proc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/4/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> That also happens. The only way I can see of ensuring it does not
happen
> would be to auto-process all patch submissions.
Sounds a good idea. Patch farm anyon
On 1/4/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> That also happens. The only way I can see of ensuring it does not happen
> would be to auto-process all patch submissions.
Sounds a good idea. Patch farm anyone? Auto apply/make check?
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:09 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I'm not clear about the difference between the unapplied patches list
> > and the hold list. What is the significance of the two lists?
> >
>
> AIUI, the hold list is those patches providing new features that were
Simon Riggs wrote:
I'm not clear about the difference between the unapplied patches list
and the hold list. What is the significance of the two lists?
AIUI, the hold list is those patches providing new features that were
held over between 8.2 feature freeze and 8.2 branch. Since they have
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 19:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I will start processing the patches held for 8.3 this week or next, now
> > > that the holiday break is over:
> > >
> > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
> > >
> >
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I will start processing the patches held for 8.3 this week or next, now
> > that the holiday break is over:
> >
> > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
> >
> >
>
>
> Some of these look obsolete. Also,
>
> . the plperl out para
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I will start processing the patches held for 8.3 this week or next, now
> that the holiday break is over:
>
> http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
>
>
Some of these look obsolete. Also,
. the plperl out params patch needs substantial rework by its aut
I will start processing the patches held for 8.3 this week or next, now
that the holiday break is over:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can
51 matches
Mail list logo