On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 02:38:54AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:14:06PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > That appears to not be mentioned in a comment, the commit message or the > > the docs. I think this definitely needs to be prominently documented. > > [Action required within 72 hours. This is a generic notification.] > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Kevin, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a > 9.6 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this > message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed > well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1. Consequently, I will appreciate your > efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks. > > [1] > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com
This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
