Re: No answers on CommitFest procedures?

"Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:

> On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 14:38 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> But patches in progress still need comments from reviewers.
>
> Certainly, but should this be done as part of the commit fest process?
> Commenting on the future direction that an in-development patch ought to
> take sounds more like a task for -hackers at large, rather than for an
> individual reviewer.

This is, from my point of view as a patch submitter, the *whole* *point* of
the commitfests. For 8.3 We had lots of people submit patches, then sit around
for months waiting for feedback. By the time they got feedback the patches had
bitrotten and it was feature-freeze time and there was a lot of pressure to
finish patches quickly.

If the author isn't looking for feedback the patch wouldn't be in the commit
fest queue.

"WIP" just means the submitter knows the patch isn't ready to commit yet.
They're probably stuck on a major design decision or just want confirmation
that they're on the right track before they invest months more of work.

I used "proof of concept" for one of my patches just to indicate it was just a
quick hack to demonstrate an idea. In this case the implementation details are
not so relevant as just whether we like the idea at all.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!