On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 09:45:40PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> >> wrote:
> >>> OK, if those don't get addressed
On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Gavin Flower
wrote:
> On 25/12/15 01:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
>> Committed: 30.
>> Moved to next CF: 42.
>> Rejected: 9.
>> Returned with Feedback: 22.
>> Total: 103.
>> Regards,
>
>
> You didn't say
On 25/12/15 01:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
[...]
And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
Committed: 30.
Moved to next CF: 42.
Rejected: 9.
Returned with Feedback: 22.
Total: 103.
Regards,
You didn't say how may regards...
[More seriously]
Many thanks to you, and the other Postgres de
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
> > Committed: 30.
> > Moved to next CF: 42.
> > Rejected: 9.
> > Returned with Feedback: 22.
> > Total: 103.
>
> Many thanks to Michael for doing the CF management wo
On 12/24/2015 04:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier writes:
And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
Committed: 30.
Moved to next CF: 42.
Rejected: 9.
Returned with Feedback: 22.
Total: 103.
Many thanks to Michael for doing the CF management work this time!
+1
--
Tomas Vondr
Michael Paquier writes:
> And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
> Committed: 30.
> Moved to next CF: 42.
> Rejected: 9.
> Returned with Feedback: 22.
> Total: 103.
Many thanks to Michael for doing the CF management work this time!
regards, tom lane
--
Sent
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> OK, if those don't get addressed soon, they will be moved to the next
>>> CF with the same status.
>>
>> After a
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> OK, if those don't get addressed soon, they will be moved to the next
>> CF with the same status.
>
> After a first pass, Numbers are getting down, I am just too tired to
> co
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> OK, if those don't get addressed soon, they will be moved to the next
> CF with the same status.
After a first pass, Numbers are getting down, I am just too tired to continue:
Needs review: 13.
Waiting on Author: 15.
Ready for Committer:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> To committers: there are 4 patches waiting for input.
>
> Those are:
>
> : SQL function to report log message
>
> AFAICT, there is no committer who likes this idea enough to commit it.
> It's questionable whether we nee
Michael Paquier writes:
> To committers: there are 4 patches waiting for input.
Those are:
: SQL function to report log message
AFAICT, there is no committer who likes this idea enough to commit it.
It's questionable whether we need such a feature at all, and it's even
more questionable whether
Hi all,
As of today, at the moment I am writing this message, here is the
commit fest app status:
Needs review: 20.
Waiting on Author: 24.
Ready for Committer: 4.
Committed: 29.
Moved to next CF: 11.
Rejected: 8.
Returned with Feedback: 7.
Total: 103.
This means in short that 48 out of 103 patche
12 matches
Mail list logo
