Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
> I don't think so. We can assume people wrote a patch because they
> want it included in Postgres. Bumping them doesn't help them or
> us, since there is always an issue other than wish-to-complete.
> Not everybody is able to commit time in the way we do and we
> should respect that better.
Sure. If people mail me off-list about needing more time, I'm
willing to accommodate, within reason.
> Authors frequently have to wait a long time for a review; why
> should reviewers not be as patient as authors must be?
Let's keep this in perspective. We're talking about pushing review
to less than two months away because of lack of author response for
over a month. And should a patch appear before then, there's
nothing that says an interested member of the community can't review
it before the next CF. You, for example, would be free to review it
at any time a patch might appear.
> We should be giving authors as much leeway as possible, or they
> may not come back.
One phenomenon I've noticed is that sometimes a patch is submitted
because an end user has solved their own problem for themselves, but
wishes to share the solution with the community. They're not always
motivated to go to the lengths required to polish it up to the
standard required for inclusion in core. In such cases, unless
someone with the time to do so finds it interesting enough to pick
up, it is just going to drop. I hope such authors feel comfortable
submitting their next effort, as it might be something which
interests a larger audience than the previous effort. We should do
what we can to ensure that they understand the dynamics of that.
-Kevin