Prev: [HACKERS] Online backup cause boot failure, anyone know why?
Next: ECPG dynamic cursor fix for UPDATE/DELETE ... WHERE CURRENT OF :curname
From: "Kevin Grittner" on 5 Aug 2010 14:42
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner(a)wicourts.gov> wrote:

New numbers on where we are with this CommitFest, at the end of the
third week:

72 patches were submitted
3 patches were withdrawn (deleted) by their authors
12 patches were moved to CommitFest 2010-09
--
57 patches in CommitFest 2010-07
--
3 committed to 9.0
--
54 patches for 9.1
--
1 rejected
17 returned with feedback
21 committed for 9.1
--
39 disposed
--
15 pending
9 ready for committer
--
6 will still need reviewer attention
1 waiting on author to respond to review
--
5 patches need review now and have a reviewer assigned

Of the four patches moved to the next CF, one was because we
couldn't find a reviewer for ECPG code at this time, one was because
both Florian and I would like to work up some additional tests for
the "serializable lock consistency" patch before sending it to a
committer, and two were because Itagaki changed jobs and didn't have
time during this CF to finish reviews already well underway.

With only ten days to go, in order to leave time for committers to
do their thing, we need to be wrapping up the remaining patches. I
think we look pretty good. Of the remaining six patches, two are
Work in Progress, so are not expected to go to a committer; three
involve a committer, so I figure they can decide when and if it's
time to return or move them, which just leaves one which is down to
tweaking docs.

The "WIP patch for serializable transactions with predicate locking"
patch has yet to have a review posted, although there have been
off-list discussions. The reviewer had to put it aside for about a
week due to job pressures, but is reported back on it. (The
suspense is killing me.)


Last week:

> 72 patches were submitted
> 3 patches were withdrawn (deleted) by their authors
> 8 patches were moved to CommitFest 2010-09
> --
> 61 patches in CommitFest 2010-07
> --
> 3 committed to 9.0
> --
> 58 patches for 9.1
> --
> 1 rejected
> 13 returned with feedback
> 12 committed for 9.1
> --
> 26 disposed
> --
> 32 pending
> 10 ready for committer
> --
> 22 will still need reviewer attention
> 7 waiting on author to respond to review
> --
> 15 need review before further action
> 2 "Needs Review" patches don't have a reviewer assigned
> --
> 13 patches need review and have a reviewer assigned


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [HACKERS] Online backup cause boot failure, anyone know why?
Next: ECPG dynamic cursor fix for UPDATE/DELETE ... WHERE CURRENT OF :curname