On 2013-10-21 09:58:30 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> If no-one really cares enough about a patch to review it, mark it
> >> as "rejected, because no-one but the patch author cares". Harsh,
> >> but that's effectively what pushing to the next commitfest means
> >> anyway.
> > Well, that could be the problem, but it's also possible that no one
> > could get to it in the alloted CF timeframe. Maybe the
> > best-qualified reviewers were on vacation, or maybe there were just
> > too many patches. I could see bouncing a patch on this basis if it
> > doesn't get touched for, say, two consecutive CFs.
> That would be more or less a declaration of failure by this project to
> regulate our own development process, and an abandonment of the idea of
> ever getting new contributors. If we don't guarantee legit patches at
> least one review, why would anyone submit code to this project at all?
Well, who are you going to get to review things that they consider
simply bad ideas? I have no problem investing serious time in doing
detailed reviews of patches I can see the point of, but reviews of stuff
I think is pointless? Not really.
> At some point folks on this list are going to admit that we have a
> serious problem with reviews and reviewers, and that it's worth a
> project-wide effort to do something about it. Apparently that day
> hasn't come yet; most people are still in denial.
The fact that people do agree with your solutions, doesn't imply that
they don't care about the problem itself.
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: