Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers

From: Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com, greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers
Date: 2011-04-18 16:52:52
Message-ID: 629606877.37167.1303145572174.JavaMail.root@mail-1.01.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert, Tom,

> Hm ... there are people out there who think *I* get high off rejecting
> patches. I have a t-shirt to prove it. But I seem to be pretty
> ineffective at it too, judging from these numbers.

It's a question of how we reject patches, especially first-time patches. We can reject them in a way which makes the submitter more likely to fix them and/or work on something else, or we can reject them in a way which discourages people from submitting to PostgreSQL at all.

For example, the emails to Radoslaw mentioned nothing about pg_ident, documented spacing requirements, accidental inclusion of files he didn't mean to touch, etc. Instead, a couple of people told him he should abandon his chosen development IDE in favor of emacs or vim. Radoslaw happens to be thick-skinned and persistent, but other first-time submitters would have given up at that point and run off to a more welcoming project.

Mind, even better would be to get our "so you're submitting a patch" documentation and tools into shape; that way, all we need to do is send the first-time submitter a link. Will work on that between testing ...

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-04-18 17:00:55 Re: Windows 64 bit warnings
Previous Message Mike Fowler 2011-04-18 16:52:23 Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1