Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu> writes:
> ... But I am aware of other cases in which people in the academic community
> have done work that could well be of interest to the Postgres community
> but didn't submit their work here. In part, that was because they did
> not have the time/motivation to get the work into a polished,
> acceptable state, and in part because of the reputation of the
> community.
Well, if the author isn't interested in getting the work into a
committable state, it's not clear what's the point of submitting it.
It's not like people who are eager to do that kind of work on someone
else's patch are thick on the ground.
But I think the perception that we reject most patches is misplaced.
It's fairly easy to demonstrate that the default assumption around here
is that submitted patches will get committed. Looking at the past five
commitfests (covering a bit more than a year), we committed 201 out of
305 patches, and only 10 were actually marked "rejected". I'm too lazy
to try to determine just which of the 94 returned-with-feedback patches
got committed in later fests, but a quick scan suggests at least 20 did,
and there are more that might get committed in the next fest. That puts
the overall patch acceptance rate at perhaps 75%. At least since the CF
mechanism was instituted, it seems to me that the dynamic has been that
someone who doesn't like a patch has to show cause why it shouldn't get
committed, not the other way around. Robert's recent comment that he
was afraid he'd have to spend time digging into the mmap patch to prove
it was broken reflects exactly that feeling.
regards, tom lane