Re: ProcessUtility_hook
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
- Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: ProcessUtility_hook
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:24:59 -0500
- Message-id: <16534.1259634299@sss.pgh.pa.us> <text/plain>
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> So, if someone writes a patch, and it is reviewed, and the patch author
> updates the patch and replies, it still should be reviewed again before
> being committed?
Well, that's for the reviewer to say --- if the update satisfies his
concerns, he should sign off on it, if not not. I've tried to avoid
pre-empting that process.
> Also, we are two weeks into the commit fest and we have more unapplied
> patches than applied ones.
Yup. Lots of unfinished reviews out there. Robert spent a good deal
of effort in the last two fests trying to light fires under reviewers;
do you want to take up that cudgel? I think wholesale commits of things
that haven't finished review is mostly going to send a signal that the
review process doesn't matter, which is *not* the signal I think we
should send.
regards, tom lane
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index