On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Now those criteria were developed to deal mainly with people committing > their own patches. What we have at the moment is a lot of patches > coming in from people who aren't ready to be committers, and maybe don't > ever want to be. The question is how to do an adequate job of reviewing > their patches, when only a fraction of the existing committers are > willing to put time into reviewing other people's patches. (Let's face > it, that's a lot less fun than writing your own code.)
I kind of like reviewing, actually. It's a good way to get familiar with new parts of the code. That's part of the coolness of open source: other people do a lot of your work for you. Of course, that doesn't mean I would want to ONLY review other people's patches and never write any of my own. > While I'm not > against promoting more committers to deal with the influx of patches, > the only way I know for people to get to the skill level of being fully > competent reviewers is to have done a lot of patch writing themselves. > > Years ago, somebody (I think one of the original Berkeley crew) remarked > "this project doesn't need a lot of people with a little time, it needs > a few people with a lot of time". I'm afraid that's still true, and > it's still hard to find those people. No, I think it's hard to find those people's salaries. I feel like I've managed a fairly good stream of patches given that this is something I do mostly between 8 PM and midnight after working a full day and in between other things that I need to get done, but if I were getting paid to hack on PostgreSQL full time (or even one or two days a week) that stream would be a whole lot bigger. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
