Re: operator exclusion constraints

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 21:38 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> In that case, I think we should target this for the next CommitFest.
>> Especially given the number and complexity of the patches remaining
>> for this CommitFest, I feel very uncomfortable with the idea of
>> waiting another week for a new patch version, and then possibly still
>> needing further changes before it is finally committed.   While we
>> allow patches to be resubmitted for the same CommitFest, this is
>> intended to be for minor adjustments, not significant rewrites.
>
> OK, I expected that to be the case. I got significant feedback at the
> beginning of this commitfest that required some substantial language
> changes. I did find this commitfest extremely productive for my feature.

Excellent, glad to hear it.

> Right now I'm trying to provide some useful feedback to Paval for his
> patch.

Thanks, I deeply appreciate that. I believe that there are 29 people
who submitted patches for this CommitFest, and that 4 of them are
reviewing, yourself included. Furthermore, patches and feature
proposals from people who are not themselves helping with the
CommitFest have continued to roll in during this CommitFest.
Personally, I find this quite objectionable. Apparently, CommitFest
no longer means a time when people put aside their own patches to
review those of others; it seems now to mean a time when 87% of the
patch authors either continue development or ignore the CommitFest
completely.

Fortunately, a number of very competent people who did NOT submit
patches nevertheless volunteered to help review, so we may be OK. But
I am not sure this is a very sustainable solution. If everyone who
submitted a pach for this CF had also reviewed one, every patch would
now have a review and there would even be enough reviewers for major
patches to have two each. Instead, we are still struggling to get
every patch looked at once.

...Robert