Hi, Simon Riggs wrote:
Such as?
Dunno. Rules for sponsors? It would probably make sense to not only pay a single developer to create and submit a patch, but instead plan for paying others to review the code as well.
You might think those arguments exist and work, but I would say they manifestly do not.
Most managers - especially within software companies I'd say - are pretty much aware of how costly quality assurance (or the lack thereof) can be, no?
What do you respond to potential sponsors who request that a new feature must be accepted into Postgres itself?
Let's tell *them* that review is costly. Encourage them to pay others to review your work, for example. Let's coopete ;-) (or whatever the verb for coopetition is)
Maybe we can do more WRT organizing this reviewing process, including payment. Some sort of bounty system or something. Dunno, this is just some brainstorming.
Almost all people doing reviews are people that have considerable control over their own time, or are directed by people that understand the Postgres review process and wish to contribute to it for commercial reasons.
Sure. I don't quite get where you are going with this argument, sorry. Regards Markus Wanner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
