| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Naz Gassiep <naz(at)mira(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: Feature freeze progress report |
| Date: | 2007-05-02 12:27:00 |
| Message-ID: | 46388394.8010402@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Naz Gassiep wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Naz Gassiep wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the suggestion was to have an automated process that only ran
>>> on known, sane patches.
>>>
>> How do we know in advance of reviewing them that they are sane?
>>
> Same way as happens now.
>
The question was rhetorical ... there is no list of "certified sane but
unapplied" patches. You are proceeding on the basis of a faulty
understanding of how our processes work.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-02 12:33:32 | Re: Feature freeze progress report |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-02 12:19:36 | Re: Patch queue triage |