Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 8.5 development schedule

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: 8.5 development schedule
Date: 2009-07-01 23:45:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Kevin
Grittner<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> The problem is that the committers control the commit date, but the
>> one seen as punished for a rejected patch is not the committers but
>> the submitter.
> Well, it would seem odd for anyone to feel "punished".

Depends on who the patch submitter thinks is at fault.  Sometimes,
patches legitimately don't get reviewed as much as would be good.
Other times, the submitter just thinks the committer is nitpicking.  I
think Bruce summarized it pretty well.

Really, when you get right down to it, you can guarantee that all
patches get a certain amount of review, or you can guarantee that the
CommitFest ends by a certain date, but not both, because you can't
force other people to spend more time on PostgreSQL than they have to
spend.  At best, you can get them to spend the time that they do have
on the right sort of things (e.g. reviewing rather than developing new
patches during CommitFest).

Of course, since you want both of those things to happen, it's a balancing act.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: KaiGai KoheiDate: 2009-07-01 23:59:58
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v8.5] Security checks on largeobjects
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-07-01 23:30:44
Subject: HEAD is open for 8.5 development

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group