Re: CF 2009-07: initial reviewing assignments

On Jul 17, 2009, at 12:02 AM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:44:51PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:42:38PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Jaime
>>>> Casanova<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>>>>> should i wait until it gets committed or will you assign me some
>>>>> other patch?
>>>>
>>>> How about this one next?
>>>>
>>>> Make pg_restore --clean to delete existing large objects
>>>
>>> Can I have one, too? My patch submitter just concluded his patch
>>> needs
>>> reworking.
>>
>> Sure, how 'bout DefaultACLs?
>
> For future reference, would it be easier if a rrreviewer-in-need-of-
> work just
> picked a patch, or would you like to be the Gatekeeper? (Insert
> reference to
> The Keymaster here...)

Well, there is some method to my madness here: I'm trying to make sure
all of the patches get reviewed, with the most important ones done
first and the ones the committers are already looking at done last
(but not skipped entirely if no progress is being made). And I'm
making some effort to guess the complexity of the patch and the skill
level of each reviewer, which as you can probably imagine is not easy
since I have highly incomplete information. But having said all that
if you like to pick your own targets, that's fine with me. Just
please (a) pick the most difficult patches you think you can do
something useful with and (b) post your intentions here and on the app.

Two particular areas of difficulty: we really need some more top-notch
reviewing of the index-related patches (multiple reviewers would be
very good), and we desperately need more people to test the Windows
shared memory fix.

...Robert