On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 23:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Earlier today I had a different thought about how to sort things early
> in the fest. I think that there is a strong temptation to finish off
> the "simple" patches quickly so as to reduce the size of the list ---
> I know I've done that and I think others have too. The trouble with
> simple-first is that problematic patches get left till later, which
> means that their authors don't have as much time to respond to any
> criticisms that may ultimately be forthcoming. I think it'd be a good
> idea to intentionally try to focus on difficult patches early, so that
> they can be bounced back to their authors with useful criticism while
> there's still time to do something in response. Not sure about details
> of this, but seems like a process issue that we ought to consider.
We should probably estimate how many reviews are needed to zero in on
the final result. Minor patches are often one hit. Larger patches
sometimes need many goes. I think asynch xacts was version 20 something
when finally applied. The higher the rating the more important it is to
get some early feedback so the authors can keep working.
The main thought needs to be: "whats the best way to get the most people
actively working on stuff for the release".
I might have suggested it before but submitters should also expect to do
reviews on other patches. That way everybody understands its a team
thing and not fire and forget.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support