On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 03:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> You are way out of line. You have no right to expect ANYONE to
>> participate in patch review and commit. Michael is doing us a favor
>> by maintaining ECPG even though he's not heavily involved in the
>> project any more and has other things to do with his time.
>
> That's a good point. I hadn't considered (or realized the extent of)
> the occasional and specific nature of Michael's involvement with the
> project these days. My apologies, then, Michael.
>
> Is there anyone else on the committer list with similar circumstances?
I would say that everyone on the committer list and every other list
has the right to choose the level of their involvement. We can't
really complain about what people choose to do or not do except to the
extent that they impose burdens on other people. For example, we
typically expect that if a committer commits a patch that breaks
something, that committer will promptly fix it. People who are not
willing to do that should not commit (or be allowed to commit). And
people who submit patches for review should also review patches: they
are asking other people to do work, so they should also contribute
work.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been made a committer on
the condition that they spend a certain minimum number of hours per
week, month, or CommitFest on patch review, and I don't think we have
any right to expect that they do that. Rather, we should be thanking
the people who do choose to do more than their share of patch review,
whether they are committers or not. And the only people who need to
be called out are people who impose work on others without doing any
themselves. People who contribute a small amount but ask nothing for
it are a good thing, not a bad thing, again, regardless of whether
they have a commit bit.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company