Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
> I'd also like to take the opportunity to express a little frustration
> about the commitfest business - really all I wanted was the patch
> *reviewed* as WIP - it seemed that in order to do that I needed to enter
> it into the various commitfests... then I was faced with comments to the
> effect that it was not ready for commit so should not have been entered
> into a commifest at all... sigh, a bit of an enthusiasm killer I'm afraid...
Well, entering a patch in a commitfest is certainly the best way to
ensure that you'll get some feedback. If you just pop it up on the
mailing lists, you may or may not draw much commentary depending on
how interested people are and how much time they have that day.
(A day or so later there'll be other topics to distract them.)
As long as the patch submission is clearly labeled WIP you shouldn't
get complaints about it not being ready to commit.
The other approach I'd suggest, if what you mainly want is design
review, is to not post a patch at all. Post a design spec, or even
just specific questions. It's less work for people to look at and
so you're more likely to get immediate feedback.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-27 16:57:31|
|Subject: Re: NaN/Inf fix for ECPG |
|Previous:||From: Tatsuo Ishii||Date: 2010-02-27 14:56:51|
|Subject: Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming
Replication integration |