On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 02:57:45PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 03:49:50PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, I just apply a two-week rule here, as of half the commit fest
> > period to let people the time to react:
> > - If a patch has been waiting on author
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 03:49:50PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:00:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Agreed, we're not here to cause make-work for submitters. RWF is
> > appropriate if the patch has been in Waiting On Author for awhile
> > and doesn't seem to be go
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:00:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Agreed, we're not here to cause make-work for submitters. RWF is
> appropriate if the patch has been in Waiting On Author for awhile
> and doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but otherwise we should
> just punt it to the next CF.
FWIW, I
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:10:39PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:00:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, thanks to Julien for doing this mostly-thankless task
> > this time!
> >
>
> Agreed, great work!
Thanks a lot :)
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:00:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Anyway, thanks to Julien for doing this mostly-thankless task
> this time!
>
Agreed, great work!
--
Jaime Casanova
Director de Servicios Profesionales
SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL
Jaime Casanova writes:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:28:53AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> If we close all patches that had a review just because they weren't perfect
>> in
>> their initial submission, we're just going to force everyone to re-register
>> their patch for every single commit fest.
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:45:40PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:28:53AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > My understanding of "Returned with Feedback" is that the patch implements
> > something wanted, but as proposed won't be accepted without a major
> > redesign
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:28:53AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> My understanding of "Returned with Feedback" is that the patch implements
> something wanted, but as proposed won't be accepted without a major redesign
> or
> something like that. Not patches that are going through normal "revi
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:09:06PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> I gave two reviews and received one review but the patches have been
> "Moved to next CF".
For now I only moved to the next commit fest the patches that were in "Needs
Review" or "Ready for Committer". I'm assuming that you failed
I gave two reviews and received one review but the patches have been
"Moved to next CF". Should I update them to "Returned with Feedback"
given they all did get feedback? I was under the impression "Moved to
next CF" was only for patches that didn't get feedback in a CF and
were still waiting for f
Hi,
It's now at least Feb. 1st anywhere on earth, so the commit fest is now over.
Since last week 5 entries were committed, 1 withdrawn, 3 returned with
feedback, 2 already moved to the next commitfest and 1 rejected.
This gives a total of 211 patches still alive, most of them ready for the next
Hi,
This is the 4th week of this commitfest.
Since last week, 5 entries were committed. There are still overall 223 active
patches, the vast majority needing review. If you signed up to review patches,
you still have a whole week to help patch making progress and getting
committed!
Status summ
Hi,
This is the beginning of the 3rd week of this commit fest.
Since my last email 5 days ago, 6 patches were committed and a few patches
closed. There are still overall 229 active patches, most of them
unsurprisingly waiting for review.
The cfbot is doing a great job at early problem detection
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 01:41:42PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The January commitfest should have started almost two weeks ago, but given
> that
> nothing happened until now I think that it's safe to assume that either
> everyone forgot or no one wanted to volunteer.
>
> I'm therfore
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 01:41:42PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> The January commitfest should have started almost two weeks ago, but given
> that
> nothing happened until now I think that it's safe to assume that either
> everyone forgot or no one wanted to volunteer.
Thanks, Julien!
--
Michael
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 04:16:36PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 6:42 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > Note that I don't have admin permissions on the cf app, so I'd be glad if
> > something could grant it!
>
> Granted!
Thanks Magnus!
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 6:42 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> Note that I don't have admin permissions on the cf app, so I'd be glad if
> something could grant it!
Granted!
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:11 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> The January commitfest should have started almost two weeks ago, but given
> that
> nothing happened until now I think that it's safe to assume that either
> everyone forgot or no one wanted to volunteer.
>
> I'm therfore volunteering to
Hi,
The January commitfest should have started almost two weeks ago, but given that
nothing happened until now I think that it's safe to assume that either
everyone forgot or no one wanted to volunteer.
I'm therfore volunteering to manage this commitfest, although since it's
already quite late it
19 matches
Mail list logo
