From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200704301129.l3UBTsl20011@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report
In-Reply-To: <13220.1177907466@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>,
	Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

I am still unclear how the patch would get into such a system, and how
we would add comments, apply, and later remove it, without causing us
even more work.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +