Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes:
> On 5/24/24 15:45, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was *not* proposing doing a regular review, unless of course
>> somebody really wants to do that. What I am thinking about is
>> suggesting how to make progress on patches that are stuck, or in some
>> cases delivering the bad news that this patch seems unlikely to ever
>> get accepted and it's time to cut our losses. (Patches that seem to
>> be moving along in good order probably don't need any attention in
>> this process, beyond determining that that's the case.) That's why
>> I think we need some senior people doing this, as their opinions are
>> more likely to be taken seriously.
> Maybe do a FOSDEM-style dev meeting with triage review at PG.EU would at
> least move us forward? Granted it is less early and perhaps less often
> than the thread seems to indicate, but has been tossed around before and
> seems doable.
Perhaps. The throughput of an N-person meeting is (at least) a factor
of N less than the same N people looking at patches individually.
On the other hand, the consensus of a meeting is more likely to be
taken seriously than a single person's opinion, senior or not.
So it could work, but I think we'd need some prefiltering so that
the meeting only spends time on those patches already identified as
needing help.
regards, tom lane
