Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Andrew,
> >
> >
> >> So if the commercial
> >> backers of PostgreSQL want better management of the project, maybe they
> >> need to find some resources to help out.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think they really care, or we'd have heard something by now. I
> > think this is up to us PG developers.
> >
> >
>
> Well, I have no confidence that any formal system will succeed without
> someone trusted by core and committers stepping up to the plate to do
> the required ongoing legwork.
>
> As for voting on patches, that seems a most un-postgres-like way of
> doing things. What is more, it assumes that multiple people will be
> reviewing patches. Our trouble right now is finding even one qualified
> reviewer with enough time for some patches.
The typical use-case is that someone is going to like the patch, but
what X changed in it, so a simple vote isn't going to work, and neither
is automatic patch application. Rarely is a patch applied unmodified by
the applier.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +