On 16 Dec 2014 7:43 am, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2014-12-15 21:18:40 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > On 12/15/2014 07:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > >> Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in > > >> the release notes. > > > > > > Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way > > > (and I'm tentatively on your side onthat one) and take that to imply > > > that we don't want more reviewers. > > > > During that thread a couple people said that novice reviewers added no > > value to the review process, and nobody argued with them then. I've > > also been told this to my face at pgCon, and when I've tried organizing > > patch review events. I got the message, which is why I stopped trying > > to get new reviewers. > > I think there's a very large difference in what novice reviewers do. A > schematic 'in context format, compiles and survives make check' type of > test indeed doesn't seem to be particularly useful to me. A novice > reviewer that tries out the feature by reading the docs noticing > shortages there on the way, and then verifies that the feature works > outside of the two regression tests added is something entirely > different. Novice reviewers *can* review the code quality as well - it's > just that many we had didn't. > > I think the big problem is that a good review takes time - and that's > what many of the novice reviewers I've observed weren't really aware of.
The review docs also over-emphasise the mechanical parts of review around make check etc, which may make it seem like that alone is quite useful. When really it's just the beginning. > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund > > -- > Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
