On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Andres Freund <
andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> On 2015-05-11 19:04:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think there's nobody, or at least very few people, who are getting
> > paid to find/fix bugs rather than write cool new features. This is
> > problematic. It doesn't help when key committers are overwhelmed by
> > trying to process other peoples' patches. (And no, I'm not sure that
> > "appoint more committers" would improve matters. What we've got is
> > too many barely-good-enough patches. Tweaking the process to let those
> > into the tree faster will not result in better quality.)
>
> +many
>
> Except perhaps that I'd expand "find/fix bugs" to include "review and
> integrate patches". Because I think few people are paid to do that
> either.
Well said and another thing to add to your point is helping in supporting
the other people's ideas by providing usecase and or much more robust
design that can be accepted in community.
I think one of the reasons for the same is that there is no reasonable
guarantee that if a person spends good amount of time on review, helping
other patches in design phase and fixing bugs, his feature patch/es will be
given more priority which makes it difficult to bargain with one's manager
or company to get more time to involve in such activities. I think if the
current process of development includes some form of prioritization for
the feature patches by people who spend more time in helping other
patches/maintenance, then it can improve the situation. Currently, we
do have some system in CF process which suggest that a person has
to review equal number and complexity of patches as he or she submits
for others to review, but I am not sure if that is followed strictly and is
sufficient.