Dave Page wrote: > I'm not specifically talking about complex patches (nor am I talking at > all about bug tracking) - there are a variety of patches in the queue, > of varying complexity. Some have been there for months, and worse, some > of them recieved little or no feedback when submitted leaving the > authors completely in the dark about whether their work will be > included, whether further changes are required, or whether they should > continue with additional enhancements.
Agreed. Remember that patches queue is just patches that no one has dealt with. It was never designed to be a community thing, but Tom and others do pull from it as necessary. If the community dealt with all patches, I wouldn't have to add anything to the queue. > I'm not advocating committing patches that might destabilize the code, > I'm suggesting making it easier for individual committers to make use of > the knowledge and experience of everyone else in the community, whilst > at the same time reducing the reliance on their own experience. Even now > we occasionally see patches getting committed that (for example) Tom has > rejected months earlier. At the very least a tracker should help prevent > that happening, at best it will help committers work faster and more > effectively because they have all the relevant discussion in front of them. This gets back to the same issue as a bug trackers --- the information has to be managed or it just becomes a dumping ground, and who is going to do that if the community can't even comment on some patches. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us 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
