> Shared responsibility is no-one's responsibility. If we are to have
> multiple CF managers, I think it would be good to have one who's mainly
> responsible, and the second one's job is to nag the first manager if
> ernothing happens, and quickly take over if necessary. Ie. a hot standby
> arrang
On 28.05.2013 01:12, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 05/16/2013 01:44 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
I'll also say:
* we need to assign CF managers at least 2 weeks in advance of each CF *
we need to replace them if they get too busy to follow-through,
* and the last CF needs two managers.
Strong +1 on both of
On 05/16/2013 01:44 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I'll also say:
> * we need to assign CF managers at least 2 weeks in advance of each CF *
> we need to replace them if they get too busy to follow-through,
> * and the last CF needs two managers.
Strong +1 on both of those.
I tried to pick up a CF that
2013-05-15 20:05 keltezéssel, Andrew Dunstan írta:
On 05/15/2013 02:00 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Obviously we need a meta-manager who makes sure we have managers, and is
able to notice that a manager is MIA and needs replaced (or at least
backed-up).
And then a meta-meta-manager to make sure that
On 05/15/2013 11:05 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 05/15/2013 02:00 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Obviously we need a meta-manager who makes sure we have managers, and is
>>> able to notice that a manager is MIA and needs replaced (or at least
>>> backed-up).
Actuall, on a more serious basis, we c
On 05/15/2013 02:00 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Obviously we need a meta-manager who makes sure we have managers, and is
able to notice that a manager is MIA and needs replaced (or at least
backed-up).
And then a meta-meta-manager to make sure that the meta-manager is
meta-managing.
And an Inspecto
> Obviously we need a meta-manager who makes sure we have managers, and is
> able to notice that a manager is MIA and needs replaced (or at least
> backed-up).
And then a meta-meta-manager to make sure that the meta-manager is
meta-managing.
And an Inspector General. Anyone have Danny Kaye's ph
Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 10:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Uhm. If I've been anything wrt the 9.3 schedule, happy is not it. We
> > completely failed to manage it in any kind of sane way. I vote +1 for
> > keeping the same commitfest schedule this year, but please let's do
> > everyo
On 05/15/2013 10:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Uhm. If I've been anything wrt the 9.3 schedule, happy is not it. We
> completely failed to manage it in any kind of sane way. I vote +1 for
> keeping the same commitfest schedule this year, but please let's do
> everyone a favor and make sure we g
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 14.05.2013 05:34, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >In the last two years, the first commit fest started in June, which is
> >about a month from now. If we are going to do that again, we should
> >clarify that as soon as possible. And if we are not, then we should
> >also
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 22:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> > In the last two years, the first commit fest started in June, which is
>> > about a month from now. If we are going to do that again, we should
>> > cla
On 05/13/2013 08:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 22:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> In the last two years, the first commit fest started in June, which is
>>> about a month from now. If we are going to do that again, we should
>>> clarify that as s
On 14.05.2013 05:34, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
In the last two years, the first commit fest started in June, which is
about a month from now. If we are going to do that again, we should
clarify that as soon as possible. And if we are not, then we should
also clarify that, because some people are
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 22:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > In the last two years, the first commit fest started in June, which is
> > about a month from now. If we are going to do that again, we should
> > clarify that as soon as possible. And if we are not, then we should
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> In the last two years, the first commit fest started in June, which is
> about a month from now. If we are going to do that again, we should
> clarify that as soon as possible. And if we are not, then we should
> also clarify that, because some people are probably expe
In the last two years, the first commit fest started in June, which is
about a month from now. If we are going to do that again, we should
clarify that as soon as possible. And if we are not, then we should
also clarify that, because some people are probably expecting that we
are.
So, any though
16 matches
Mail list logo
