On 2013-10-21 09:58:30 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > > >> If no-one really cares enough about a patch to review it, mark it > >> as "rejected, because no-one but the patch author cares". Harsh, > >> but that's effectively what pushing to the next commitfest means > >> anyway. > > > > Well, that could be the problem, but it's also possible that no one > > could get to it in the alloted CF timeframe. Maybe the > > best-qualified reviewers were on vacation, or maybe there were just > > too many patches. I could see bouncing a patch on this basis if it > > doesn't get touched for, say, two consecutive CFs. > > That would be more or less a declaration of failure by this project to > regulate our own development process, and an abandonment of the idea of > ever getting new contributors. If we don't guarantee legit patches at > least one review, why would anyone submit code to this project at all?
Well, who are you going to get to review things that they consider simply bad ideas? I have no problem investing serious time in doing detailed reviews of patches I can see the point of, but reviews of stuff I think is pointless? Not really. > At some point folks on this list are going to admit that we have a > serious problem with reviews and reviewers, and that it's worth a > project-wide effort to do something about it. Apparently that day > hasn't come yet; most people are still in denial. The fact that people do agree with your solutions, doesn't imply that they don't care about the problem itself. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
