Bruce,
> > 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?
>
> 2% for you or Tom reviewing a recently discussed, run-of-the mill patch.
> I suspect that %age will rise as the patch complexity increases and the
> reviewers experience decreases - which is exactly the situation that it
> would help to improve.
Moreover, what I'm looking for is tools which will:
1) allow existing reviewers to make better use of the time that they have, and
2) encourage/assist new reviewers in helping out, and
3) not bottleneck on the availability of a single project member
The current patch-queue process is failing to scale with the project: every
release it gets to be more work for you & Tom to integrate the patches. We
need to think of new approaches to make the review process scale. As a
pointed example, you're about to go on tour for 2 weeks and patch review will
stall while you're gone. That's not sustainable.
If you don't think that a web tool will help, then what *do* you think will
help? Just "soldiering on" isn't really an answer, and I notice that you're
very quick to come up with reasons why anything we might try will fail, but
extremely reluctant to make suggestions for improvement.
==============
Dave,
> Also note that I'm not saying I can produce a system that's 100% correct
> - just one that will capture the posts that keep the patch ID in their
> subject line *automatically* - meaning you don't have to worry about
> keeping threads for the existing queue or tracking the patch status.
Is there a reason why the system needs to be primarily based on e-mail? I was
thinking that the patch manager would be entirely a web tool, with people
submitting and modifying a patch directly through a web interface. This
would be lots easier to build than an e-mail based system, and also far more
useful from a monitoring standpoint. I've worked with e-mail based systems
like RT and OTRS, and frankly they're extremely high-maintenance and suffer a
large amount of "lost" information.
We could also build a number of other things into the web tool, like a "You
are submitting this patch under BSD" disclaimer and pointers to the Developer
FAQ and other relevant documents.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
