Re: [RRR] [HACKERS] Commitfest: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:03 AM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>> The Good:
>> - Most patches still in play have a reviewer.
>
> As far as I remember, there were discussions about the issue
> "A patch has a reviewer, but in Needs Review state for several weeks "
> in 9.0 development.
>
> Do we have any plans for it? According to the commitfest app, one patch
> has only one reviewer at once. A new reviewer might avoid reviewing
> a patch that have another reviewer already.

No, the column is very clearly labelled "Reviewers", not "Reviewer".
And we have certainly had patches with more than one person's name in
that field in the past. The issue is rather that we don't have enough
people reviewing. We haven't had enough people volunteer to do
reviews to even assign ONE person to each patch, let alone two. There
are, as of this writing, SEVEN patches that have no reviewer at all.

Of course, several of the committers, including you, me, and Tom, have
been working our way through the patches. And that is great. But the
point of the CommitFest process is that everyone is supposed to pitch
in and help out, not just the committers. That is not happening, and
it's a problem. This process does not work and will not scale if the
committers are responsible for doing all the work on every patch from
beginning to end. That has never worked, and the fact that we have a
few more committers now doesn't change that.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company