Re: Closing commitfest 2013-11

Dne 21.1.2014 18:52 "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> napsal(a):
>
> Hello
>
> I disagree with it. There was no any request to move "ready for commit"
patches to next commitfest! I expected so only unfinishing patches should
by moved there by their authors. I sent question to Peter E. But without
reply, but Tom did commits from thist list, so I expected so there is some
agreement about it and I did'nt any alarm.
>
> My patch there is prerequsity for "dump --if-exi

Sorry, train and mobile :(

It is required for "dump --if-exists" feature.

Regards

Pavel
>
> Dne 21.1.2014 17:41 "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> napsal(a):
>
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> >> With apologies to our beloved commitfest-mace-wielding CFM, commitfest
>> >> 2013-11 intentionally still contains a few open patches. I think that
>> >> CF is largely being ignored by most people now that we have CF 2014-01
>> >> in progress. If we don't want to do anything about these patches in
the
>> >> immediate future, I propose we move them to CF 2014-01.
>> >
>> > I think the idea was that patch authors should take responsibility for
>> > pushing their patches forward to 2014-01 if they still wanted them
>> > considered. Quite a few patches already were moved that way, IIRC.
>>
>> Agreed on that general theory.
>>
>> And, also, yeah, the shared memory message queueing stuff got
>> committed. Sorry, I missed the fact that there was still an open CF
>> entry for that; I assumed that it would have been marked Returned with
>> Feedback.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Haas
>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers