On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 09:09:48 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 08:50:04 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yeah, maybe. To do that, we'd have to strongly resist the temptation to
> >> spend a lot of time fixing up submitted patches --- if it's not pretty
> >> darn close to committable, back it goes. But that might be a good thing
> >> all around. I find this idea attractive.
> > Actually as a patch submitter I would somewhat prefer that as well. Its
> > not exactly easy to learn what wasn't optimal with your patch at times.
> > On the other hand for some issues its pretty hard to fix the more
> > involved issues without e.g. Tom's involvement.
> This would amount to reducing the amount of time we spend
> in-CommitFest from 50% to slightly less than 25%. That would
> certainly be pleasant from my point of view, but for the average patch
> to get the same amount of attention, we'd need twice as many
> volunteers, or the existing people to volunteer twice as much time, or
> everyone to work twice as fast as they already are. That's not
> impossible, if the new system inspires more people to contribute, but
> 2x is a lot, especially when you correct for relative skill levels:
> we're not going to find another Tom Lane.
> Still, it's an interesting thought.
Additional points:
* perhaps it also frees up time if committers balk earlier if a patch doesn't
meet some requirement
* Patch submitters learn more:
* so they submit better patches in the future
* so they can apply the same standards when they review other patches
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
