Dave Page wrote: > > The bottom line is that there is a lot of thinking that the patch queue > > is so large because no one knows what to do. "Oh, if we were better > > communicators, more would be done". The patch queue is large because we > > have lots of March 31 patches, and because we don't have enough people > > to review them quickly. > > Thats is true, but there are also patches in there that have been there > for quite some time adn have had little or no feedback. Consider > Heikki's grouped index items patch > (http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches/msg00032.html). That thread starts on > 7th March when he posted an update because the old one had bitrotted. > There are six messages in the thread on the patch queue, four of which > say "message no available", and the last means little without the > preceeding messages. > > When a committer comes to look at this, if he's not sure of something > he's going to be wasting time searching the archives to find all the > different thread fragments that make up the various discussions on the > topic, and those related to each individual revision of the patch. That > has got to be part of what makes reviewing patches both hard, and > uninteresting work. If we can make it easier and quicker, even with just > the current committers we might have found that one of you were able > (and keen) to review much more quickly.
The bottom line is if you had a system that was 100% perfect in capturing all information about a patch, it only helps us 2% toward reviewing the patch, and what is the cost of keeping 100% information? -- 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 6: explain analyze is your friend