Robert Treat wrote:

No offense, a whole lot of this thread seems to be positioned that way, but the real problem seems to be we do not have enough patch reviewers. ISTM the questions we should be asking are who can actually help out with patch review and then ask those people why they haven't done it. If folks like Peter, Andrew, Magnus, Simon, Joe, and Niel all say that they are not reviewing patches because they can't find the patches that need review, they can't figure out who is reviewing what, or they don't think anyone is paying attention when they do review something, then I think we have a serious problem and we certainly need to change processes. What I think you'll find is that they are all just busy working on other things, which in that case I think we need to figure out how to motivate them to focus on the patch queue rather than other items. IMHO


I think that if all the patches are listed with all relevant context information on a webpage, then people can more easily jump in when they unexpectedly have time (or prefer to procrastinate some other real world thing they should rather work on). Right now if you have a few hours to spare you do not have all the information readily available. Even worse by inquiring for the information you might feel you are commiting more than you really wanted to. This kind of information needs to be right there without any person having to actively provide it upon inquiry.

regards,
Lukas

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
      choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
      match

Reply via email to