On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 09:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 07:49 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> A further point is that it's very difficult to > >> keep track of progress if the CF page reflects a whole bunch of > >> supposedly "Waiting on Author" patches that are really quite > >> thoroughly dead. > > > > True, but the point under discussion is what to do if no reply is > > received from an author. That is something entirely different from a > > patch hitting a brick wall. > > > > We gain nothing by moving early on author-delay situations, so I suggest > > we don't. > > No, we gain something quite specific and tangible, namely, the > expectation that patch authors will stay on top of their patches if > they want them reviewed by the community. If that expectation doesn't > seem important to you, feel free to try running a CommitFest without > it. If you can make it work, I'll happily sign on.
I don't think so. We can assume people wrote a patch because they want it included in Postgres. Bumping them doesn't help them or us, since there is always an issue other than wish-to-complete. Not everybody is able to commit time in the way we do and we should respect that better. Authors frequently have to wait a long time for a review; why should reviewers not be as patient as authors must be? We should be giving authors as much leeway as possible, or they may not come back. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers