| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Albert Cervera i Areny <albert(at)nan-tic(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: next CommitFest |
| Date: | 2009-11-13 14:52:00 |
| Message-ID: | 4AFD7290.2050500@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> The docs case is a good example. We do ask people to write docs, but I
>> don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs. I am
>> not against any of the ideas suggested in this thread --- I am just
>> pointing out we are heading in a very new direction with the
>> _requirements_ mentioned.
>>
>
> We reject patches for lack of docs all the time. We certainly don't
> have a policy that the reviewer or committer will write the docs for
> you if you fail to write them yourself. Sometimes the reviewer or
> committer will help copy edit, or will revise, but in most cases they
> won't write them from scratch.
>
> Of course, we don't reject such patches PERMANENTLY - people just add
> the docs and resubmit.
>
>
>
In that case people are working on their own patches. That's quite
different from asking/requiring them to work on somebody else's.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Chernow | 2009-11-13 15:00:15 | Re: Listen / Notify rewrite |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-13 14:45:07 | Re: next CommitFest |