Re: next CommitFest
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: next CommitFest |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1258043499.14054.511.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: next CommitFest (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: next CommitFest
Re: next CommitFest Re: next CommitFest |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 06:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > Having said that, > I'm not capable of single-handedly effecting an on-time release You're bloody good and the task needs to fit our capability anyway. So, yes, you are. > We need larger, more robust pools of > committers, reviewers, commitfest managers, etc. We're living in a desert. We just need to remember it. Plan hard, focus on the important and be real. Move at a smooth pace to save resources. Don't give up when the going gets tough, just rest up and then continue. Not a new idea, but I think we should require all patch submitters to do one review per submission. There needs to be a balance between time spent on review and time spent on dev. The only real way this happens in any community is by peer review. All patch submitters need to know that they must also take their turn as patch reviewers. If it is a hard rule, then patch *sponsors* would be forced to accept that they must *also* pay for review time. It is the sponsors that need to be forced to accept that reality, though we can only "get at them" through controlling developer behaviour. So, I propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have done sufficient review to be allowed to develop again. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: