On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:30:14AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Greg, > > > It's more than the available experienced reviewers are willing to chew > > on fully as volunteers. The reward for spending review time is pretty > > low right now. > > Short of paying for review time, I don't think we have another solution > for getting the "big patches" reviewed, except to rely on the major > contributors who are paid full-time to hack Postgres. You know as well > as me that, as consultants, we can get clients to pay for 10% extra time > for review in the course of developing a feature, but the kind of time > which patches like Row Security, Changesets, or other "big patches" need > nobody is going to pay for on a contract basis. And nobody who is doing > this in their "spare time" has that kind of block. > > So I don't think there's any good solution for the "big patches".
Let me echo Josh's comments above --- in the early years, we had trouble creating new features that required more than 1-2 weekends of development. We now have enough full-time developers that this is not a problem, but now it seems features requiring more than a weekend to _review_ are a problem, so full-time folks are again required here. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
