Thanks for the votes of confidence. I am willing to take on the
responsibility if the core committee agrees.
thanks,
--Barry
Rene Pijlman wrote:
> On 06 Sep 2001 14:18:09 +0200, Gunnar Rønning wrote:
>
>>* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>| Of these #3 seems like the solution that will emerge in the long term
>>| anyway; but do we have candidate patch-meisters now?
>>|
>>| Comments, better ideas, nominations, volunteers?
>>
>
>>I would like to nominate Barry Lind as he has been doing great work for a
>>long time.
>>
>
> I second that, if Barry volunteers of course.
>
>
>>Maybe 2-3 of the most active JDBC developers should be given
>>commit access, so we're not dependent on one person to merge in patches.
>>
>
> I'm not sure if I qualify, since I haven't been around very
> long, but I'll be glad to help out if volunteers are needed.
>
> I'm under the impression that JDBC receives more ad hoc patches
> from relative newcomers than the backend does. Therefore, I
> propose to follow a peer review procedure for applying patches
> to JDBC:
>
> 1) Every patch must be reviewable. It should be a clean diff and
> it must contain a clear description of the problem that's being
> solved, the reason for certain changes, JDBC compliance etc.
>
> 2) Every non-trivial patch should receive a positive
> recommendation from at least one person of a team of certified
> reviewers before it is applied. The review process (e.g. Q&A
> between reviewer and developer, approve/reject) occurs on the
> pgsql-jdbc list.
>
> This is already happening with a lot of patches, but I think it
> would be good to turn this practice into an official and
> documented procedure.
>
> Regards,
> René Pijlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
