Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > The hold queue has patches that still need discussion, or ideas for > > > > patches, so it is more than just patches ready for application, and > > > > moving the whole thing at once would overwhelm patch reviewers. > > > > > > So why aren't all patches that are posted to the -patches list in the > > > hold queue? > > > > Because I haven't looked them over yet, and wasn't putting things in the > > queue while we were waiting on 8.2.1. > > No, I mean in principle, not in this particular case. If we have two > queues, and there's a barrier to moving patches from the "hold" queue to > the other queue, why aren't patches posted in pgsql-patches put right > away in the "hold" queue?
They could be, but remember, my queues are only for patches that no one else has delt with, so auto-add doesn't make lots of sense, plus many patches aren't sent to patches, or are discussions in the patches list, or are ideas that have to be made into patches. > After all, there's already a barrier to applying a patch in the non-hold > queue, which is that someone reviews and approves it. Does it make > sense to have three barriers to the patch managing process? ISTM two is > good enough (first when moving a patch from the hold queue to the main > queue, and then when applying a patch from the main queue). > > I hope I'm making sense here :-) Yea. We could just throw things in the hold queue if we were sure we would get only good patches/ideas from all lists. Right now the hold queue is only used during this transition period between releases. I am afraid that to capture everything, you would basically just duplicate the archives. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
