| From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Last gasp |
| Date: | 2012-04-05 21:03:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAAZKuFbHQA6Q3hO5amMLh6Zvh=-8tdKeQFUacdDVREnvp889Jg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yep. I think Tom and I and others were all pretty clear that there
> were not enough people reviewing this CommitFest,
Sorry to derail the thread just a little, but I've thought a little
about this and I wonder if part of the problem is just that some of
the patches are really large: doing a really thorough job reviewing is
quite demanding, and the amount and kind of lore everyone has at their
disposal is different.
To get to the point, I wonder if it makes sense for someone who has a
better sense a-priori what they're looking for in a committable patch
(i.e. a committer, or someone with a telepathic link to one or more)
to delegate specific pieces of patches for thorough review, sketching
some thoughts about pitfalls or hazards to look for. Think of it as a
patch checklist that is informed by the experience of a committer
skimming its contents.
--
fdr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-04-05 21:04:37 | Re: Last gasp |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-05 20:41:49 | Re: Last gasp |