On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 08:50:04 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> > I think we should put less temporal emphasis on the finishing part, but
>> > use the time better. I would imagine one commit fest per month, but
>> > it's only a week long. Then everyone can really concentrate on the
>> > commit fest, people get faster feedback, but there is ultimately more
>> > time to do other things. Something to think about.
>> Yeah, maybe. To do that, we'd have to strongly resist the temptation to
>> spend a lot of time fixing up submitted patches --- if it's not pretty
>> darn close to committable, back it goes. But that might be a good thing
>> all around. I find this idea attractive.
> Actually as a patch submitter I would somewhat prefer that as well. Its not
> exactly easy to learn what wasn't optimal with your patch at times.
>
> On the other hand for some issues its pretty hard to fix the more involved
> issues without e.g. Tom's involvement.
This would amount to reducing the amount of time we spend
in-CommitFest from 50% to slightly less than 25%. That would
certainly be pleasant from my point of view, but for the average patch
to get the same amount of attention, we'd need twice as many
volunteers, or the existing people to volunteer twice as much time, or
everyone to work twice as fast as they already are. That's not
impossible, if the new system inspires more people to contribute, but
2x is a lot, especially when you correct for relative skill levels:
we're not going to find another Tom Lane.
Still, it's an interesting thought.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company