Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I like the idea of having a sync point mid cycle, however, what I'd like
> > to see even more is an improved system in which we put less pressure on
> > the few committers we have, and give them more freedom to commit patches
> > they may not understand fully themselves
> That is a recipe for disaster :-(. The real problem I see with the big
> patches that are currently in the queue is that I'm not sure even the
> authors understand the patches (or more accurately, all their potential
> consequences) completely. Telling committers they should apply such
> patches without having understood them either is just going to lead to
> an unfixably broken system.
> [ thinks for a bit... ] What we need to expand is not so much the pool
> of committers as the pool of reviewers. If a patch had been signed off
> on by X number of reasonably-qualified people then it'd be fair to
> consider that it could be committed. The tracking system you suggest
> could make that sort of approach manageable.
I am still unclear how the patch would get into such a system, and how
we would add comments, apply, and later remove it, without causing us
even more work.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at