On 5/17/24 21:59, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 3:51 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> wrote: >> On Fri, 2024-05-17 at 13:12 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: >>>> Long time ago there was a "rule" that people submitting patches are >>>> expected >>>> to do reviews. Perhaps we should be more strict this. >>> >>> Big -1. How would we even be more strict about this? Public shaming? >>> Withholding a commit? >> >> I think it is a good rule. I don't think that it shouldn't lead to putting >> people on the pillory or kicking their patches, but I imagine that a >> committer >> looking for somebody else's patch to work on could prefer patches by people >> who are doing their share of reviews. >
Yeah, I don't have any particular idea how should the rule be "enforced" and I certainly did not imagine public shaming or anything like that. My thoughts were more about reminding people the reviews are part of the deal, that's it ... maybe "more strict" was not quite what I meant. > If you give me an automated way to find that out, I'll consider paying > some attention to it. However, in order to sort the list of patches > needing review by the amount of review done by the patch author, we'd > first need to have a list of patches needing review. > > And right now we don't, or at least not in any usable way. > commitfest.postgresql.org is supposed to give us that, but it doesn't. > It'd certainly help to know which patches to consider for review, but I guess I'd still look at patches from people doing more reviews first, even if I had to find out in what shape the patch is. I'm far more skeptical about "automated way" to track this, though. I'm not sure it's quite possible - reviews can have a lot of very different forms, and deciding what is or is not a review is pretty subjective. So it's not clear how would we quantify that. Not to mention I'm sure we'd promptly find ways to game that. regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
