From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch queue concern |
Date: | 2007-03-29 09:06:14 |
Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901E7B0AE@m0143.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > My feeling is we should have more regular sync points where the
patch
> > queue is emptied and everything committed or rejected.
>
> No doubt, but the real problem here is that
> reviewing/committing other people's patches is not fun, it's
> just work :-(. So it's no surprise that it tends to get put
> off. Not sure what to do about that.
In my experience it mostly pays to keep people directly responsible for
their own work.
Every intermediate tester/reviewer/coordinator tends to reduce the
submitter's feeling for responsibility.
So I could imagine a modus operandi where a submitter states:
I feel confident that you can commit without review and will be availabe
for fixes/additional work required.
Maybe we have that in the form of committers that commit their own work
already.
But I do feel that some patches Bruce is talking about need aggreement
and help, not only review.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-03-29 10:03:14 | Re: Patch queue concern |
Previous Message | Koichi Suzuki | 2007-03-29 08:50:03 | Re: [PATCHES] Full page writes improvement, code update |