On 05/19/2007 12:48:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, but if you ask at an early stage it's perfectly fair to ask for
comments on how much work an implementation of idea X might be. Plus
people could save you from wasting time going down dead-end paths.
True. But then I wouldn't get extra points
Karl O. Pinc [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 05/18/2007 08:59:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'd like to see something that emphasizes review and feedback at the
stages of germinal idea, rough functional spec, implementation
concept,
Speaking as a larval Postgres hacker I have trouble asking about
the
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that we should follow the Linux model all
that closely. I know there are regressions in the point zero
releases, and that there are bugs.
This morning a friend IM'ed me a comment about Martin Michlmayr's PhD
thesis, which is about release
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:05:55PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
there are no obvious, glaring mistakes could go a long way. (I have
this weird idea that I should not apply a patch unless someone else says
hey, looks OK to me. Somehow, the mere lack of objections does not
increase my
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Having the Linux process still in memory, I started thinking that maybe
what we need, is a sign-off process, whereby developer A reviews other
developers' patches, make comments, and when the commented-on developer
(call him B) has fixed the issues that A had, then A
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Having the Linux process still in memory, I started thinking that maybe
what we need, is a sign-off process, whereby developer A reviews other
developers' patches, make comments, and when the commented-on developer
(call him B) has fixed the
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In order to make patch review more effective, perhaps we could use some
tools to help us. How about
http://www.chipx86.com/blog/?p=222
I kinda think this is emphasizing the wrong end of the process. Code
everything, then ask for comments is about as
On 05/18/2007 08:59:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'd like to see something that emphasizes review and feedback at the
stages of germinal idea, rough functional spec, implementation
concept,
etc. Reviewing the actual code is good too, but if that's the first
stage that you ask for help at, you are
On Fri, 2007-18-05 at 21:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I kinda think this is emphasizing the wrong end of the process.
I don't disagree, but I think a tool like this would still be enormously
helpful (to me, at any rate). While there's more to the process of
feature development than just mailing
