On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this basically just boils down to too many patches and not
> enough people. I was interested in Command Triggers from the
> beginning of this CommitFest, and I would have liked to pick it up
> sooner, but there were a LOT of patches to work on for this
> CommitFest. The first three CommitFests of this cycle each had
> between 52 and 60 patches, while this one had 106 which included
> several very complex and invasive patches, command triggers among
> them. So there was just a lot more to do, and a number of the people
> who submitted all of those patches didn't do a whole lot to help
> review them, sometimes because they were still furiously rewriting
> their submissions. It's not surprising that more patches + fewer
> reviewers = each patch getting less attention, or getting it later.
This is a good point. The current process lacks inherent scalability.
I would really like us to enforce a policy of 1 patch => 1 review.
That way we automatically have enough review time, no matter how many
patches we get. If we don't enforce that, then patch sponsors are more
likely to take the attitude that review isn't something they need to
pay for, just the dev work.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services