From: | "Tom Dunstan" <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Commit fest queue |
Date: | 2008-04-10 10:43:36 |
Message-ID: | ca33c0a30804100343m39bf31afq2b656c7c26bbe06@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >> What's wrong with a patch submitter submitting a patch to a tracker,
> >> but then emailing the list for actual discussion?
>
> What's what we have today with the wiki. We don't need any special software to
> do that. It does require some patch queue maintainer(s) to make sure things
> get added or updated.
Right, which is what a tracker gives you. A patch submitter can stick
a patch up as WIP or whatever, and update it to
ready-for-commit-review when they're ready, and it's easy to get a
list of ready-to-review patches. If someone wants a patch to get
reviewed in a commit fest, then it better have the latest version and
an up-to-date status. I don't think getting submitters to follow the
rules will be very hard - as someone pointed out it's trivial compared
to the effort of writing a patch. The problem is more likely to be
cleaning up old patches that people submit that never make it to prime
time, but that's easier work for non-core people to help with.
Anyway, I've said my piece and I don't want to discourage movement to
a wiki - it seems a vast improvement in submitter-participation over
the status quo. I just think there are even better tools for the job.
Cheers
Tom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2008-04-10 10:44:20 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2008-04-10 10:21:09 | Re: Index AM change proposals, redux |