Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit

* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> I think the larger issue is that we have to adjust to a new-normal where
> Tom isn't going to be as helpful in this area. Do we need more
> committers? Do we need to adjust the process or dates? These are
> probably the questions we should be addressing.

I'm afraid we are seeing issues beyond this- there don't seem (at least
to me) to be as many reviewers working on reviewing patches to give
feedback on them prior to having committers look either. I suspect
that's largely because there hasn't been the 'push' for that to happen
of late.

Further, as it relates to individuals and the organizations that they
work for, I think we should be very clear that we are happy to accept
the work they are doing even if it isn't furthering the commitfest,
provided the code is at the level of quality we expect, the capability
is one we desire, and the design is sound. Insisting that we punt
patches from Tom, or any other committer, which meet those criteria
because Tom (or whomever) didn't do enough work on the latest commitfest
is doing ourselves a disservice. That these companies are funding Tom
and other committers to write open source code for all of us to benefit
from is great and should be encouraged.

That said, we certainly don't want to abandon the commitfests or, more
generally, patch submission from non-committers. I haven't got any
great solutions to that problem, as I've been having trouble finding
time to support the commitfest too, but cutting off all progress would
surely be worse.

Thanks!

Stephen