On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> The CommitFest is supposed to be a time to >> *commit the patches that are ready to be committed*, not to wait >> indefinitely for them to become ready to be committed. > > I beg to differ. Commit Fests are the time when patch authors know they > can get feedback from the community and in particular committers. > > So as a patch author it's best if you can arrange your schedule and be > ready to submit new versions as asked, or comment on your design choices > and trade-offs, etc. > > Patch commit can happen whenever in the cycle at the discretion of the > committer. Commit Fest are all about *review* and *feedback*.
Sure, I don't disagree with any of that. >> I therefore propose that we start by marking all of the patches that >> are currently Waiting on Author as Returned with Feedback. Most of >> them have been that way for a long time. > > That seems fair. > >> Then, I think all of the people who are listed as reviewers need to >> take a look at the current state of their patches and decide whether >> or not they are reasonably ready to be committed. If they are, then > > I've been distracted away from this commit fest but should be able to > get back to it now. Will post soon about the patches I enrolled myself > with. Thanks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
