Robert Haas wrote:
I'm happy with Andrew's interpretation --- I just want a separate text
field for inserting a committer's name. I don't want any magic behavior
of that field.
OK, I'll add a separate text field for the committer's name, but for
now it won't display on the summary page
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> If we went with Bruce's interpretation, we could have a "committer"
>>> field that only appears when the status is "Claimed by Committer" or
>>> "Committed" and the con
Robert Haas wrote:
OK, I'll add a separate text field for the committer's name, but for
now it won't display on the summary page, just the detail page.
Perhaps it could go underneath the reviewer names, maybe in a different
color. (And yes, like many of us I suck at GUI design, so feel
BTW, if you have time for any purely cosmetic details ... the way the
CommitFest field on a patch detail page works has always struck me as
weird. It's a data field, and so if it has any behavior at all that
behavior ought to involve modifying its value. But what it actually is
is a navigation li
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> If we went with Bruce's interpretation, we could have a "committer"
>> field that only appears when the status is "Claimed by Committer" or
>> "Committed" and the contents of that field could be displayed in
>> parentheses i
Robert Haas writes:
> If we went with Bruce's interpretation, we could have a "committer"
> field that only appears when the status is "Claimed by Committer" or
> "Committed" and the contents of that field could be displayed in
> parentheses in the status column, like this: Claimed by Committer (T
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert acknowledged the need for a "claimed by committer" field in the
>> fest application, but he hasn't got round to it yet.
> Sorry I haven't gotten around to this. Beyond being a little burned
> out a little bit, I h
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>
>>> It would also like to clarify the use case for this a little bit more.
>>> Is this just to track patches which committers are in the process of
>>> committing (or have committed)? Or would a committer potentiall
Bruce Momjian wrote:
It would also like to clarify the use case for this a little bit more.
Is this just to track patches which committers are in the process of
committing (or have committed)? Or would a committer potentially set
this on some patch that was still being reviewed, and if so wou
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan writes:
> >> As I have observed before, I think we need some infrastructure to help
> >> committers claim items, so we don't duplicate work.
> >
> > Robert acknowledged the need for a "claimed by committer"
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> As I have observed before, I think we need some infrastructure to help
>> committers claim items, so we don't duplicate work.
>
> Robert acknowledged the need for a "claimed by committer" field in the
> fest application
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Considering that one of those was a holiday week with a lot of schedule
> disruption proceeding it, I don't know how much faster things could have
> moved. There were large chunks of the reviewer volunteers who wanted only
> jobs they could fi
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm going to look at the YAML format for EXPLAIN patch shortly.
Do we have consensus yet that we want YAML? It seemed, well,
yet another format without all that much advantage over what's
there.
I think you and I are the two main skeptics ;
On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm going to look at the YAML format for EXPLAIN patch shortly.
>
> Do we have consensus yet that we want YAML? It seemed, well,
> yet another format without all that much advantage over what's
> there.
Legibility++
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hack
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> As I have observed before, I think we need some infrastructure to help
> committers claim items, so we don't duplicate work.
Robert acknowledged the need for a "claimed by committer" field in the
fest application, but he hasn't got round to it yet. In the meantime
I've
Greg Smith wrote:
If the need here is to speed up how fast things are fed to committers,
we can certainly do that. The current process still favors having
reviewers do as much as possible first, as shown by all the stuff
sitting in the re-review queue. The work we're waiting on them for
Bruce Momjian wrote:
So, if someone writes a patch, and it is reviewed, and the patch author
updates the patch and replies, it still should be reviewed again before
being committed?
That's generally how things were expected to happen--to at least
double-check that the proposed fixes match what w
17 matches
Mail list logo
