Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > >> Robert Treat wrote: > >> > >>> No offense, a whole lot of this thread seems to be positioned that way, > >>> but > >>> the real problem seems to be we do not have enough patch reviewers. ISTM > >>> the > >>> questions we should be asking are who can actually help out with patch > >>> review > >>> and then ask those people why they haven't done it. If folks like > >>> Peter, > >>> Andrew, Magnus, Simon, Joe, and Niel all say that they are not reviewing > >>> patches because they can't find the patches that need review, they can't > >>> figure out who is reviewing what, or they don't think anyone is paying > >>> attention when they do review something, then I think we have a serious > >>> problem and we certainly need to change processes. What I think you'll > >>> find > >>> is that they are all just busy working on other things, which in that > >>> case I > >>> think we need to figure out how to motivate them to focus on the patch > >>> queue > >>> rather than other items. IMHO > >> I think that if all the patches are listed with all relevant context > >> information on a webpage, then people can more easily jump in when they > >> unexpectedly have time (or prefer to procrastinate some other real world > >> thing they should rather work on). Right now if you have a few hours to > >> spare you do not have all the information readily available. Even worse > >> by inquiring for the information you might feel you are commiting more > >> than you really wanted to. This kind of information needs to be right > >> there without any person having to actively provide it upon inquiry. > > > > OK, how does that happen without a lot of work, or moving all discussion > > on to a web-based system? > > No discussion takes place on the lists and IRC and busy bees make sure > that the progress/decisions etc get updated on the static wiki. Wiki's > suck at discussions, but they are great to store the decisions made so > that anyone can get himself upto speed and things do not get lost over time. > > It seems that you have been the only busy bee so far, and we definitely > need more for this to work.
Yea, I was afraid that was the answer. :-( -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
