On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> All the CF manager needs to do is ensure that every patch submitted >> chalks up one review. If you think about it, we wouldn't actually need >> any rr reviewers at all then, because if we have 20 patches we would >> have 20 reviews due. So the whole scheme is self-balancing. > > Well, no, that's *far* too optimistic/simplistic, because it imagines > that every review is worth the same. What we lack is not just review > time but qualified review time, ie, comments from someone who's already > familiar with the portion of the code base that's being patched.
Right, but I think we're more likely to find such people among the pool of existing contributors than we are among people who don't write patches themselves but happen to volunteer to review. I think Simon's idea of requiring 1 review per patch probably IS a bit overly simplistic - for one thing, someone who submits 10 patches, as I did in the July CommitFest, can scarcely be expected to also review 10 patches. (Even if they were willing, it would make the CommitFest longer, not shorter.) But I don't think they should get by reviewing none, either, especially if they're submitting patches to every CommitFest. It's not my idea that we should punish someone like Dave Page who does a lot of PostgreSQL work and occasionally writes a patch. What I'm complaining about is people who submit patches regularly and rarely or never review. We have enough volunteers to cover new and occasional patch submitters; sometimes those reviews are not quite as thorough, but new and occasional contributors tend to submit relatively simple patches anyway, so it's not a catastrophe. It's the regular patch submitters who, IMHO, most need to be involved. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
