| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: a few thoughts on the schedule |
| Date: | 2015-05-21 05:51:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20150521055158.GC3934913@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:15:14AM -0400, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 20 May 2015 at 03:13, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > Brief committer appraisals are unhelpful individually, but patterns
> > matter. I
> > would make the questionnaire as simple as necessary to get 4-7 committer
> > evaluations per patch. Prefer 30-second analyses from each of five
> > committers, not 30-minute analyses from two.
> I'm happy to participate as a "triager" and will follow whatever process we
> decide.
>
> I would very much like to make this something we do via the CF app.
Good place for it.
> I believe we should include in our thinking how we nurture and grow
> reviewers, contributors and committers. I am more likely to treat a
> low-value patch seriously if it is an early contribution from someone, for
> example.
Absolutely, though I am unsure how to specifically account for that in
community processes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-05-21 06:53:38 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2015-05-21 05:35:00 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add pg_audit, an auditing extension |