| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch queue concern |
| Date: | 2007-03-28 23:30:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1175124607.4386.485.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 17:37 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I realize it isn't fair that committers are behind on patches, while we
> are expecting submitters to make the deadline, but there are far fewer
> committers than submitters, and there was never a promise to commit
> everything before feature freeze.
I'm expecting to review patches after freeze and I'm much more free to
do that now than I have been previously. It seems important we have a
tiered review process so that some of the more obvious flaws can be
driven out of patches as early as possible.
If we can set expectations that every developer has to contribute review
time, committer or not, then we'll all be better off. That need not take
away authority from committers, nor give it to reviewers.
Anybody and everybody is certainly welcome to comment on my own patches.
My feeling is we should have more regular sync points where the patch
queue is emptied and everything committed or rejected. That way
rejection is less of a problem and we will all have more opportunity to
build upon each others good work.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2007-03-29 00:53:58 | problems with plan invalidation |
| Previous Message | Joris Dobbelsteen | 2007-03-28 23:23:13 | Re: Guarenteeing complex referencial integrity through custom triggers |