From: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Maciej Gajewski <maciej(dot)gajewski0(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List |
Date: | 2013-06-24 22:07:06 |
Message-ID: | 51C8C30A.5070805@catalyst.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 25/06/13 03:54, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>
> It is mentioned. Of course now I can't find it but it is there.
>
> However, I believe you are taking the wrong perspective on this. This is
> not a shame wall. It is a transparent reminder of the policy and those
> who have not assisted in reviewing a patch but have submitted a patch
> themselves.
>
> In short, leave the ego at the door.
>
Lol - Josh's choice of title has made it a small shame wall (maybe only
knee high).
However as your last line says - no *actual* harm has been done (no
kittens killed etc).
One of the reasons for fewer reviewers than submitters, is that it is a
fundamentally more difficult job. I've submitted a few patches in a few
different areas over the years - however if I grab a patch on the queue
that is not in exactly one of the areas I know about, I'll struggle to
do a good quality review.
Now some might say "any review is better than no review"... I don't
think so - one of my patches a while was reviewed by someone who didn't
really know the context that well and made the whole process grind to a
standstill until a more experienced reviewer took over. I'm quite wary
of doing the same myself - anti-help is not the answer!
Regards
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-06-24 22:18:26 | Re: Bugfix and new feature for PGXS |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2013-06-24 22:03:11 | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |