On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> I'm not going to apologize for expecting *committers* to participate in
> patch review and commit.
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. I think
you're about two emails away from him having him resign in disgust,
and if he does, then the burden of reviewing and committing ECPG
patches is going to fall on someone else. Do you expect Tom or Noah
or Simon or myself to pick up the slack after you've driven him away?
I suppose you probably do, and that is absolutely wrong and really
pretty offensive.
I think it's completely appropriate for you to remind people who have
submitted patches for review but not reviewed any that they need to do
that part of it, too. Fair is fair. But you cannot enforce mandatory
volunteerism on people just because they are committers. Maybe you
think the world would be a better place if committers who didn't pull
their weight had their commit bits pulled, or that it doesn't matter
if you drive them to resign in disgust. I respectfully disagree.
Yeah, committers who are completely idle and never do anything
probably shouldn't have a commit bit. But someone like Michael who
reliably maintains ECPG is an asset to the project whether he chooses
to do anything else or not. I'm flabbergasted that you can't see
that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company