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.
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 |