On 04/25/2011 02:26 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Overall, I think the advantages to a faster/shorter CF cycle outweigh the disadvantages enough to make it at least worth trying. I'm willing to run the first 1-week CF, as well as several of the others during the 9.2 cycle to try and make it work.
It will be interesting to see if it's even possible to get all the patches assigned a reviewer in a week. The only idea I've come up with for making this idea more feasible is to really buckle down on the idea that all submitters should also be reviewing. I would consider a fair policy to say that anyone who doesn't volunteer to review someone else's patch gets nudged toward the bottom of the reviewer priority list. Didn't offer to review someone else's patch? Don't be surprised if you get bumped out of a week long 'fest.
This helps with two problems. It helps fill in short-term reviewers, and in the long-term it makes submitters more competent. The way things are setup now, anyone who submits a patch without having done a review first is very likely to get their patch bounced back; the odds of getting everything right without that background are low. Ideally submitters might even start fixing their own patches without reviewer prompting, once they get into someone else's and realize what they didn't do.
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US g...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
