Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> Why we can do it this way is because we're not starving on
>> reviewers. We're starving on commiters time. And seeing this:
> Well, we're actually somewhat starving on senior reviewers as well.
> That can take on things like the index patches, Writable CTE or SR.
> We're not starving on reviewers for small-to-medium patches.
We've been talking about having "specialized" reviewers, or multi
layered reviewing. There are several things we do in reviewing, and for
big enough patches there's no need to have the same reviewer do all of
[...searching the archives for a proposal I did already send...]
So this mail proposes we see those separate items to be handled in
- patch (applies, merge, compiles, pass regression)
- code reading (looks like it was already there, no WTF?) 
- documentation (covers code, targets users, is sufficient)
- testing (code behavior is what is documented, works well)
- creative testing (tried hard to crash it)
- perf testing (profiling, no regression in non optimized cases...)
- you name it
Now the senior reviewers you're talking about are required the most for
code reading. We certainly still can have an army of junior reviewers,
or not-wannabe-hackers reviewers checking the other points. That'd push
the bottleneck some.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2010-01-08 09:35:03|
|Subject: new full vacuum doesn't work|
|Previous:||From: Nikhil Sontakke||Date: 2010-01-08 09:10:19|
|Subject: Re: Why doesn't query_tree_walker examine the intoClause field?|