To: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>,
	Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report 
In-reply-to: <4634EC25.6010104@postgresql.org> 
References: <200704270313.l3R3DwF16449@momjian.us>
	<1177792836.3663.61.camel@silverbirch.site>
	<46349EF4.2010304@enterprisedb.com>
	<4634EC25.6010104@postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:04:05 +0100"
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:31:06 -0400
Message-ID: <13220.1177907466@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> writes:
> I like the idea of having a sync point mid cycle, however, what I'd like 
> to see even more is an improved system in which we put less pressure on 
> the few committers we have, and give them more freedom to commit patches 
> they may not understand fully themselves

That is a recipe for disaster :-(.  The real problem I see with the big
patches that are currently in the queue is that I'm not sure even the
authors understand the patches (or more accurately, all their potential
consequences) completely.  Telling committers they should apply such
patches without having understood them either is just going to lead to
an unfixably broken system.

[ thinks for a bit... ]  What we need to expand is not so much the pool
of committers as the pool of reviewers.  If a patch had been signed off
on by X number of reasonably-qualified people then it'd be fair to
consider that it could be committed.  The tracking system you suggest
could make that sort of approach manageable.

			regards, tom lane