Message-ID: <47D1A61E.4080203@hagander.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:31:26 +0100
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
CC: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Commitfest process
References: <47D1521E.8090606@enterprisedb.com>
	<20080307101413.7d191e52@commandprompt.com>
	<47D18D80.2050107@enterprisedb.com>
	<20080307105047.2e34a156@commandprompt.com>
	<20080307194612.GB16862@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<47D19E18.4060303@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <47D19E18.4060303@enterprisedb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:46:24 +0000
>>> "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we'll have more success convincing patch authors to update a 
>>>> wiki page, than we'll have to convince reviewers to do so. I know
>>>> that's true at least for me. If I want people to review my patch, I'm
>>>> ready to sing and dance if that's what it takes. But if there's extra
>>>> steps in reviewing a patch, I might just not bother.
>>> Well that is what my email is about, dropping extra steps :).
>>
>> I agree that that's a good objective, but I think a Wiki makes for a
>> crappy patch tracker.
> 
> Sure, but let's not turn this into a bug/patch tracker discussion, 
> please :-/. A wiki is not ideal, but it's there.

Yeah, let's keep focus on *this* commitfest for now. The only chance 
anything will be used for that is if it exists, in production, for 
postgresql, *today*.

If we want something else in the future, sure. Let's do this as an 
iterative process.

> The main point of my proposal is: let's make the *authors* who want 
> their stuff to be reviewed as part of a commitfest do the extra work. 
> There would be no extra work required for patch reviewers.

I think that's perfectly reasonable. There *will* be small patches that 
fall through the cracks of that, but we can deal with those outside the 
process for now, I think.


//Magnus