Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Just as a personal view, if people were to send me doc or "trivial"
> patches in git-am format, with proper commit message, and Acked or
> Signed-off etc. lines from recognized contributors, and proper
> References: mail header linked to the discussion or "suggestion"
> message, I could probably commit 20 of those in an hour.
> Instead, I have to review the entire email thread for discussion, any
> possible reviews or test runs, extract the patch from the email, mangle
> it into proper form, apply it, think of a commit message, make sure I
> register all the right people in the message, re-review the commit,
> push, reply to email, optionally, log into commit fest, find the patch,
> click a bunch of times, close it, done -- I think. That takes 15
> minutes per patch, and after two patches like that I'm tired.
I hear you ... but, given that the source material is a mailing-list
thread, *somebody* has to do all that work to produce an acceptable
commit. And if you're just going to commit what that somebody sends you
without further review, then you might as well give that person a commit
bit, because you're trusting them to get all this right. So I'm not
sure how this moves us forward, other than to the obvious observation
that it'd be great if we had more qualified committers.
regards, tom lane