On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 09:45:40PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> >> wrote:
> >>> OK, if those don't get addressed
On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Gavin Flower
wrote:
> On 25/12/15 01:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
>> Committed: 30.
>> Moved to next CF: 42.
>> Rejected: 9.
>> Returned with Feedback: 22.
>> Total: 103.
>> Regards,
>
>
> You didn't say
On 25/12/15 01:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
[...]
And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
Committed: 30.
Moved to next CF: 42.
Rejected: 9.
Returned with Feedback: 22.
Total: 103.
Regards,
You didn't say how may regards...
[More seriously]
Many thanks to you, and the other Postgres de
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
> > Committed: 30.
> > Moved to next CF: 42.
> > Rejected: 9.
> > Returned with Feedback: 22.
> > Total: 103.
>
> Many thanks to Michael for doing the CF management wo
On 12/24/2015 04:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier writes:
And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
Committed: 30.
Moved to next CF: 42.
Rejected: 9.
Returned with Feedback: 22.
Total: 103.
Many thanks to Michael for doing the CF management work this time!
+1
--
Tomas Vondr
Michael Paquier writes:
> And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
> Committed: 30.
> Moved to next CF: 42.
> Rejected: 9.
> Returned with Feedback: 22.
> Total: 103.
Many thanks to Michael for doing the CF management work this time!
regards, tom lane
--
Sent
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> OK, if those don't get addressed soon, they will be moved to the next
>>> CF with the same status.
>>
>> After a
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> OK, if those don't get addressed soon, they will be moved to the next
>> CF with the same status.
>
> After a first pass, Numbers are getting down, I am just too tired to
> co
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> OK, if those don't get addressed soon, they will be moved to the next
> CF with the same status.
After a first pass, Numbers are getting down, I am just too tired to continue:
Needs review: 13.
Waiting on Author: 15.
Ready for Committer:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> To committers: there are 4 patches waiting for input.
>
> Those are:
>
> : SQL function to report log message
>
> AFAICT, there is no committer who likes this idea enough to commit it.
> It's questionable whether we nee
Michael Paquier writes:
> To committers: there are 4 patches waiting for input.
Those are:
: SQL function to report log message
AFAICT, there is no committer who likes this idea enough to commit it.
It's questionable whether we need such a feature at all, and it's even
more questionable whether
Hi all,
As of today, at the moment I am writing this message, here is the
commit fest app status:
Needs review: 20.
Waiting on Author: 24.
Ready for Committer: 4.
Committed: 29.
Moved to next CF: 11.
Rejected: 8.
Returned with Feedback: 7.
Total: 103.
This means in short that 48 out of 103 patche
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 1.3.2014 18:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
> > Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected:
> > 4. Total: 114.
> >
> > We're still on track to achieve
On 1.3.2014 18:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
> Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected:
> 4. Total: 114.
>
> We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which
> would be similar to the pre
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Vik Fearing
wrote:
> > On 03/01/2014 07:50 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> On 03/01/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>> Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
> >>> Committe
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 03/01/2014 07:50 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 03/01/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
>>> Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
>>> Tot
On 03/01/2014 07:50 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 03/01/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
>> Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
>> Total: 114.
>>
>> We're still on track to achieve about 50% c
On 03/01/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
> Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
> Total: 114.
>
> We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which would
> be similar to the
Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
Total: 114.
We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which would
be similar to the previous few commit fests. So decent job so far.
Which br
On Apr 11, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
In short, I think it's time to declare our first commit fest done.
OK, todo updated, but what about the "Maintaining cluster order on
insert" idea?
http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) writes:
> In short, I think it's time to declare our first commit fest done.
Congratulations!
As a pure observer in the matter, it has clearly been a somewhat
painful process, which must be tempered by the consideration that what
was being reviewed was pretty much a
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> In short, I think it's time to declare our first commit fest done.
>
> > OK, todo updated, but what about the "Maintaining cluster order on
> > insert" idea?
> > http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
>
> The la
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> In short, I think it's time to declare our first commit fest done.
> OK, todo updated, but what about the "Maintaining cluster order on
> insert" idea?
> http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
The last item I see in the thread is s
Tom Lane wrote:
> What's left on Bruce's patch queue page is:
>
> * Finishing out Heikki's patch to allow runtime determination of the
> need to recheck an index condition. What's committed so far doesn't
> yet have any actual use :-(. Although I intend to keep working on
> that, it's clearly ne
What's left on Bruce's patch queue page is:
* Finishing out Heikki's patch to allow runtime determination of the
need to recheck an index condition. What's committed so far doesn't
yet have any actual use :-(. Although I intend to keep working on
that, it's clearly new development and hence not
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> However, we've got boatloads of stuff that needs discussion and
>> consensus-achievement. Please take a look at the queue
>> http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
> Alvaro tried to dump this list into:
> http://wik
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, it's the end of March, and I'm already starting to feel like we've
> been commit-festing forever :-(. At this point I see only one remaining
> patch that seems likely to go in without any further discussion --- that's
> Pavel's plpgsql EXECUTE USING
Well, it's the end of March, and I'm already starting to feel like we've
been commit-festing forever :-(. At this point I see only one remaining
patch that seems likely to go in without any further discussion --- that's
Pavel's plpgsql EXECUTE USING thing. However, we've got boatloads of
stuff th
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 17:50 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > FYI, we started the commit fest with 2k emails. We now have 787 emails
> > left to process, and many are done but waiting for me to add TODO items
> > or just delete them.
>
> Just finished reviewing the remaining it
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 17:50 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> FYI, we started the commit fest with 2k emails. We now have 787 emails
> left to process, and many are done but waiting for me to add TODO items
> or just delete them.
Just finished reviewing the remaining items on the queue that I can
com
FYI, we started the commit fest with 2k emails. We now have 787 emails
left to process, and many are done but waiting for me to add TODO items
or just delete them.
--
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterpri
31 matches
Mail list logo
