Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Merlin Moncure escribi?:
ISTM if we move to a 'wiki style' patch management, or something more
formal like a bug tracker the work becomes more decentralized and the
patch developer becomes more involved in keeping the patch list up to
date with the latest stuff. I think the wiki, being a more organic
type of approach. is maybe a better fit for postgresql community
style, and there is still a lot of 'plumbing' work to do.
Right. If the submitter thinks that the reviewer is going to need to
have a look at the relevant email archives, he can post a link to the
archives in the discussion web page for the patch.
True, but what are the odds that is going to happen. We have trouble
getting context diffs.
I know merlin and I allocated a lot of resources towards our patch. If
getting reviewed required us to jump through some hoops (like being
repsonsible for updating a wiki), then so be it. If someone doesn't
follow the patch submission rules, then the patch can't be reviewed as
it is not within the proper state ... not a punishment just a patch not
meeting review requirements.
What are the requirements of a patch submission, don't know. One thing
is for sure, the patch submitter is probably the most familiar with it
so should be involved at some level of review preparation. This
distributes the work and "attempts" to make patches more consistent when
reviewed.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
