Tom Lane wrote:
This isn't really about tools. It's about who wants to put in the day-after-day, year-after-year drudge work to maintain the queue. Whoever wants to do the work can pick their tools...
I still think it would be best if the patch authors did the work. They are the ones who care about the patch and want the review, and they're in the best position to know what the status of a patch is. Others can do it as well of course, in the spirit of a Wiki.
That leaves out most of the discussion threads, potential TODO items etc. that Bruce collects in the patches queue. Depending on your viewpoint that's either a good or a bad thing. It's good because it keeps the patch queue short and relevant; we'll only have patches or design proposals in the list that are genuinely waiting for review. But it's bad because good patches from one-off submitters might fall through the cracks.
That's where I'd love to have Bruce to help. He's good at following up items and making sure nothing falls through the cracks. I don't mind what tool he uses for doing that, the mailbox probably is the easiest for that task. And that's the kind of work that's hard to do as a team.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
