On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 07:09:24PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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.
> I am traveling --- I left on Friday.  I am in Sydney now.
> As far as scaling, patch information isn't our problem right now.  If
> someone wants to help we can give them up-to-date information on exactly
> how to deal with the patch.  It is people doing the work that is the
> bottleneck.


> As an example, how is patch information going to help us review HOT or
> group-item-index?  There is frankly more information about these in the
> archives than someone could reasonable read.  What someone needs is a
> summary of where we are now on the patches, and lots of time.
> FYI, Tom, Heikki, I need one of you to post the list of patches and
> where we think we are on each one, even if the list is imperfect.

I think you just contradicted yourself. Information isn ot the problem, but
you need more information...

I think this is a fairly clear indication that we do need a better way to
track this information.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to