| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: next CommitFest |
| Date: | 2009-11-16 17:42:16 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070911160942yd81635emd21de83a82d307ec@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
>
>> Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't "totally evilly
>> draconian."
>>
>> There's a difference between:
>>
>> "You haven't reviewed any patches - we'll ignore you forever!"
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Since you haven't reviewed any patches, we are compelled to defer your
>> patches until the next CommitFest."
>>
>> It's enough pain to make people think, but it's not *totally* punitive.
>
> It is important to remember we are all volunteers here. Any increase to
> the barrier of contribution is a bad one.
True. But "not enough reviewers to review all the patches we get" is
also a barrier to contribution.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2009-11-16 17:49:16 | Re: ORDER BY vs. volatile functions |
| Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2009-11-16 17:41:02 | Re: next CommitFest |