Subject: Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres
To: Christian Convey <christian.convey@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CABgyVxDBd3EvRdo-Rd6eo8QPEqV8=ShaU2SJfo16wfE0R-hXTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmy0wLcyE3d=jbfpgoKtTicGoZ64AKKfEkG+ccXxtmajSBGeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgyVxBjX6VbnbHfZRSDJBav4xKH5vSLZqTpr989sMOb+jX+jA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMjNa7e7E81T3NqoReixYxrCFQpfWd+Mht0NhetW3bJB=Gs7Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <007001d1f786$d903fa90$8b0befb0$@andl.org>
 <00a52208-3199-5858-8846-2530b0bb34df@archidevsys.co.nz>
 <f7682c24-4271-1ff5-d963-053ecb0fce40@BlueTreble.com>
 <CA+Tgmoa8=kMNkOGDCZYR-L_PAoQ2Vdb9EmSV+=7pRv+J3u7_CA@mail.gmail.com>
 <27271.1471366764@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZYjv9xWub1kbcSWC_RPg3qB_ELNBhQOki1g387JMyoVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgyVxAO57r=cE0TdMn2XpBDO=d3cj289ep3xQu=8K-tWs79+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <66b61d8b-fe76-d4a9-a983-93a94444a2a6@BlueTreble.com>
 <CAPfS4Zz5P6fLMV9OszRUDMHDLf3nKV1HLcPNVtjkByzmFgFBQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <14459.1473189179@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAPfS4ZxZHQGBKsa7UUhfmW1J-fqRqMj9EauEK_p3u=upiSm8eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPfS4ZxmGfZyfxQnoLBe=AoekZk+rKP4FM3gqqC2UYWkMzmTHg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <bf69c150-9f3f-fd1f-a576-6f8a538cd1fb@iki.fi>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:11:04 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Icedove/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPfS4ZxmGfZyfxQnoLBe=AoekZk+rKP4FM3gqqC2UYWkMzmTHg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 09/11/2016 01:20 AM, Christian Convey wrote:
> Hi Heikki,
>
> Could I ask you a newbie-reviewer question about something I'm seeing
> here?  https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/776/
>
> From some reading I've done (e.g., Stephen Frost's PGCon 2011 slides),
> I got the impression that a successful patch would always have this
> sequence of states in commitfest:
>   1. patch-record created
>   ...
>   2. Needs Review
>   ...
>   3. Ready for Committer
>
> But if I'm reading the patch's activity log correctly, it looks like
> you marked the patch as "Ready for Committer" (2016-09-06 18:59:02)
> without any record of it having been reviewed.
>
> Was that intentional?

Yeah, I commented on the patches at 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e8e7e5a7-0308-2c36-d32a-7aab16ba498c%40iki.fi. 
It was very cursory, but I figured that would be sufficient feedback for 
now, for Peter to proceed with the first few straightforward patches in 
the series. I don't think there's consensus that we want to do more than 
that, to actually switch to C++.

> P.S. I'm asking because I was planning to review that patch.  But I
> can't tell if any more review by a non-committer is still required by
> the commitfest workflow.

I think this has gotten enough attention, for the commitfest workflow. 
But of course, if you're interested, feel free to review and comment anyway!

- Heikki


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