Re: ProcessUtility_hook

[Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>]

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

OK, so the reviewer knows he has to reply to the author's comments, OK.

> > 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

I am afraid I am then duplicating work the commit fest manager is doing,
and if someone is bugged by me and the CF manager, they might get upset.

> 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.

True.

Maybe I am best focusing on open issues like the threading and psql -1
patches I worked on today.  There is certainly enough of that stuff to
keep me busy.  I thought I could help with the commit fest load, but now
I am unsure.  That non-commit-fest stuff has to be done too so maybe
managing that will help.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +