From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Commitfest process |
Date: | 2008-03-07 20:53:48 |
Message-ID: | 47D1AB5C.2050803@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Chernow wrote:
>
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> The main point of my proposal is: let's make the *authors* who want
>> their stuff to be reviewed as part of a commitfest do the extra work.
>> There would be no extra work required for patch reviewers.
>>
>
> I think this makes the most sense. It distributes the work to authors
> who know the most about the patch/feature and have probably followed
> all discussions related to it. Updating a wiki or something similar
> is a brainless activity.
We are making much too big a deal of not very much here. AIUI a
commitfest just involves a change in priority of tasks, mainly by
committers, but also to some extent by other developers capable of doing
reviews.
As for making authors do extra work: good luck with that.
In any case - ideally there shouldn't be any extra work.
If someone wants to turn the patch list into something more
reader-friendly, then that's a separate issue, really, quite apart from
the commitfest. I rather liked the wiki page that Stefan Kaltenbrunner
maintained for 8.4 features - it provided quite a good overview of where
we were.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-03-07 20:59:17 | Re: CopyReadLineText optimization |
Previous Message | Robert Lor | 2008-03-07 20:41:17 | Re: Commitfest process |