On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > I'm not sure. ISTM that a painfull couple hours every now and then are > much less bad than the continuous CF we had lately. I personally also > find it frustrating to go through the CF and see a good portion of > things that I never can see going anywhere, but that still suck up > resources. > > I'd actually be willing to do triage every now and then; but I don't > think it should always be the same person. For one it does come with > power, for another it's nice to now always be the person having to tell > people that their stuff isn't relevant/good/whatever enough. It's also > not good to needlessly build up SPOFs.
It's pretty hard to tell someone that they're working on something that doesn't matter to us. That's why it happens comparatively rarely. If I told some new contributor that their patch was not worth our time, I'd fully expect some other experienced hacker to show up 5 minutes later and tell me I'm wrong, unless perhaps the idea was shockingly bad, which is rare. >> Unless talented reviewers can get such job offers, we are going to >> continue to have trouble making ends meet. > > Hasn't every talented reviewer gotten job offers shortly afterwards in > the last few years? The ones that accept don't necessarily work that > much in the community, but several seem to. And I think in the case of > several people the reason they don't, is less the company, but that it's > emotionally draining. I think that's very true, and often unacknowledged. Reviewing other people's work can be very difficult. I do not enjoy conflict with other people on this mailing list one bit, and that's getting harder to deal with on a personal level over time, not easier. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
