Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> I think this is historical revisionism. ...
> Somewhere down the line this seems to have been forgotten and we are now
> using commitfests just to track finished patches.
> So if we want to stick to the original principles we should have some
> sort of "different set of review guidelines". Or perhaps we could just
> decide that we don't care much about this problem and toss it aside.
Well, I absolutely think that we need to encourage people to get
feedback at the design and prototype stages. The problem with the
commitfest mechanism for that is that when you are trying to work out a
patch, you don't want to wait around for a couple months for comments.
The time delay that's built into the CF process means that it's
fundamentally not very good for anything except finished patches that
can sit on a shelf for awhile before they get applied.
I think that ideally, WIP reviews would be something that happens
quickly on pgsql-hackers, and probably it would be best if they were
explicitly *not* encouraged while a CF is on. I know that I tend to see
discussions of unfinished patches as something of a distraction when
I'm up to my ears in committing finished ones, and certainly there's
less mental bandwidth available then.
> Maybe this is something to discuss at the next developer's meeting.
I'd rather talk about it on-list so we can get comments from a wider
circle of people.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
