From: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Commitfest process |
Date: | 2008-03-08 07:50:37 |
Message-ID: | 37ed240d0803072350m521c2bcay6743b0269439eef1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/03/2008, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I think we'll have more success convincing patch authors to update a
> wiki page, than we'll have to convince reviewers to do so. I know that's
> true at least for me. If I want people to review my patch, I'm ready to
> sing and dance if that's what it takes. But if there's extra steps in
> reviewing a patch, I might just not bother.
+1. As a patch author, I have much more personal investment in a
patch than anyone else, and I'm happy to maintain a wiki page if it's
going to get my patches through the process more efficiently.
But I also agree with Josh Drake's comment about a single point of
entry. If patch authors are updating the wiki, and reviewers are
using the wiki to guide their efforts, what purpose does the -patches
mailing list serve? Does sending an email to -patches on top of
submitting the patch on the wiki actually buy us anything? It seems
redundant.
Regards,
BJ
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-03-08 08:40:41 | Re: Commitfest process |
Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2008-03-08 00:23:48 | Re: Commitfest process |