On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 8:50 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 2:45 AM Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I guess the *valuable* sometimes means the effort we pay is greater > > than the benefit we get, As for this patch, the benefit is not huge (it > > is possible the compiler already does that). and the most effort we pay > > should be committer's attention, who needs to grab the patch, write the > > correct commit and credit to the author and push it. I'm not sure if > > Aleksander is worrying that this kind of patch will grab too much of > > the committer's attention and I do see there are lots of patches like > > this. > > Very fair point. However, as you said in your follow-up email, Richard > Guo has done a lot of good work in this area already, so it makes > sense to pay a bit more attention to his suggestions. > Agreed. > > > In my opinion, we can do some stuff to improve the ROI. > > - Authors should do as much as possible, mainly a better commit > > message. As for this patch, the commit message is " Adjustment > > to get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys" which I don't think matches > > our culture. > > I agree. I don't think the patch submitter is obliged to try to write > a good commit message, but people who contribute regularly or are > posting large stacks of complex patches are probably well-advised to > try. It makes life easier for committers and even for reviewers trying > to make sense of their patches. > Fair enough. > > Actually I also want to know what "Ready for Committer" is designed for, > > and when/who can mark a patch as "Ready for Committer" ? > > Any reviewer who feels that this is the case. It's not binding on > anyone; it's an opinion. > Glad to know that. I have marked myself as a reviewer and mark this entry as "Ready for Committer". https://commitfest.postgresql.org/44/4286/ -- Best Regards Andy Fan
