Brendan Jurd wrote: > > Does that move us in the direction of the patch tracker? That does > > raise the bar for patch submitters, though I would catch any patches > > that weren't in the tracker. > > > > I suppose you could say that it would raise the bar, but for what it's > worth I would much *rather* be maintaining a wiki page / row in a wiki > table than sending emails with attachments to a list. Especially if > the wiki is equipped with clever templates for doing same*. > > When you consider the hours spent reading and understanding existing > code, making changes and compiling/recompiling/regression testing that > a patch author needs to do in order to even create a patch, the extra > five minutes it takes to add a line to a wiki table doesn't really > signify. And pretty much pays for itself in terms of the immediate > satisfaction of knowing that your patch is now safely in the correct > queue.
I think there is concern that trivial patches wouldn't be submitted to a patch tracker, especially by new submitters. Again, I am willing to track the ones that aren't in the patch tracker, but then we have two places where patches exist (perhaps three with the wiki). -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
