Re: Patch Submission Guidelines

On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 05:28:54PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > How much time would you need? I think having every patch built before
> > anyone even looks at the code would sort out most of the issues I
> > mentioned.
>
> If I ran a buildfarm machine, I'd turn it off immediately if anyone
> proposed setting up a system that would cause it to run code no one
> had vetted... so I don't think the above will fly. It might or might
> not be worth doing something with patches that have passed some kind
> of initial review but aren't yet applied.

Ofcourse not totally unvetted code, but something like Bruce's patch
queue. Something that would compile them and tell you if they pass
regression, or even note when a patch no longer applied cleanly to
-HEAD. I was thinking it might be useful to have a level between
committer and just a regular person. Sort of like we don't trust this
guy to commit to -HEAD but enough to run basic tests on the patches.

> IMHO the thing we are really seriously short of is patch reviewers.
> Neil and Bruce and I seem to be the only ones doing that much at all,
> and the main burden is falling on Bruce. More eyeballs would help
> much more than throwing machines at the problem.

Yeah. Unfortunatly the parts of the code I am familiar with are not the
parts people submit patches on :(. There a lot of code there...

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.