Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:31 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Well, right now we ask for docs, but if they are not supplied, I think > > we just write them ourselves. Is a different enforcement method being > > suggested here? > > And we never bump late patches, nor reject them if sent in missing > format etc. > > We enforce all manner of rules. You tell me this is your main function > on the project even. Is there now no enforcement of any rule, just > because I propose a new one?
Enforcing civil behavior in the group, in a private way, is different from having a public policy that requires patch review. Again, I am not against this change --- I am just pointing out it is new territory for us. > Address the main question: how will we get more review time? There are > many other possible proposals, so please lets hear them. (And how would > they be enforced?) Not sure, but I would like to point out the bottleneck is not currently the reviewers but the ability to give final approval and commit it. And again, the commit process is very fast --- it is that final approval that is hard. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> 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
