Re: Not ready for 8.3

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Not ready for 8.3
Date: 2007-05-17 15:59:53
Message-ID: 464C7BF9.9010206@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 04:52:16PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>>> This is what happens with the Linux kernel. They have hundreds of
>>> developers getting their hands dirty during a previous period. Then
>>> 2.6.20 is released; the 2.6.21 "merge window" opens, and all sort of
>>> patches are flooded in.
>>
>> I hasten to point out that the Linux kernel has also had several
>> "stable" releases with huge bugs --
>
> /me fondly remembers kernel 2.4.
>
>

We keep focusing on process. I am on record as saying we can improve our
processes, but the fact is our major immediate problem is person-power,
not process. We need more qualified reviewers. Qualified means (to me,
at least) you have to have done enough visible PostgreSQL hacking that a
committer can reasonably place some level of trust in your review,
thereby saving some time. That's not to say that others can't or
shouldn't do reviews - every little bit helps, but if Freda Bloggs comes
along with a review of some new, large, feature, she isn't helping to
make the process shorter, although she might be helping to make it more
robust.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2007-05-17 16:03:55 Re: mb and ecpg regression tests
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-05-17 15:49:52 mb and ecpg regression tests