Re: Last gasp

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Last gasp
Date: 2012-04-11 17:28:23
Message-ID: 1334165303.25392.9.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On ons, 2012-04-11 at 06:04 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> Compare with:
>
> -Submitter suggests doc change
> -No one has a strong opinion on it, may not be picked up at all
> -Submitter adds to the next CF
> -Wait for review
> -[Possible repost update with reviewer changes]
> -Ready for committer
> -Committer takes time away from code review to look at it
> -Possibly another feedback/review resubmission
> -Commit final versions

I totally get that.

Just as a personal view, if people were to send me doc or "trivial"
patches in git-am format, with proper commit message, and Acked or
Signed-off etc. lines from recognized contributors, and proper
References: mail header linked to the discussion or "suggestion"
message, I could probably commit 20 of those in an hour.

Instead, I have to review the entire email thread for discussion, any
possible reviews or test runs, extract the patch from the email, mangle
it into proper form, apply it, think of a commit message, make sure I
register all the right people in the message, re-review the commit,
push, reply to email, optionally, log into commit fest, find the patch,
click a bunch of times, close it, done -- I think. That takes 15
minutes per patch, and after two patches like that I'm tired.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua Berkus 2012-04-11 17:39:04 Re: Last gasp
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-04-11 17:23:21 Re: Last gasp