Bruce, > > The bottom line is if you had a system that was 100% perfect in > > capturing all information about a patch, it only helps us 2% toward > > reviewing the patch, and what is the cost of keeping 100% information? > > 2% for you or Tom reviewing a recently discussed, run-of-the mill patch. > I suspect that %age will rise as the patch complexity increases and the > reviewers experience decreases - which is exactly the situation that it > would help to improve.
Moreover, what I'm looking for is tools which will: 1) allow existing reviewers to make better use of the time that they have, and 2) encourage/assist new reviewers in helping out, and 3) not bottleneck on the availability of a single project member The current patch-queue process is failing to scale with the project: every release it gets to be more work for you & Tom to integrate the patches. We need to think of new approaches to make the review process scale. As a pointed example, you're about to go on tour for 2 weeks and patch review will stall while you're gone. That's not sustainable. If you don't think that a web tool will help, then what *do* you think will help? Just "soldiering on" isn't really an answer, and I notice that you're very quick to come up with reasons why anything we might try will fail, but extremely reluctant to make suggestions for improvement. ============== Dave, > Also note that I'm not saying I can produce a system that's 100% correct > - just one that will capture the posts that keep the patch ID in their > subject line *automatically* - meaning you don't have to worry about > keeping threads for the existing queue or tracking the patch status. Is there a reason why the system needs to be primarily based on e-mail? I was thinking that the patch manager would be entirely a web tool, with people submitting and modifying a patch directly through a web interface. This would be lots easier to build than an e-mail based system, and also far more useful from a monitoring standpoint. I've worked with e-mail based systems like RT and OTRS, and frankly they're extremely high-maintenance and suffer a large amount of "lost" information. We could also build a number of other things into the web tool, like a "You are submitting this patch under BSD" disclaimer and pointers to the Developer FAQ and other relevant documents. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate