From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200705021211.l42CBCO23570@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report
In-Reply-To: <87k5vrh1wg.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 08:11:12 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Gregory Stark wrote:
> 
> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> 
> > We seem to handle trivial patches just fine.  
> 
> You keep saying that but I think it's wrong. There are trivial patches that
> were submitted last year that are still sitting in the queue.

You seem to be looking at something different than me.  Which patches?

> In fact I claim we handle complex patches better than trivial ones. HOT, LDC,
> DSM etc receive tons of feedback and acquire a momentum of their own.
> Admittedly GII is a counter-example though.
> 
> Well, I claim it's often the trivial patches that require the domain-specific
> knowledge you describe. If they were major patches they would touch more parts
> of the system. But that means they should be easy to commit if you could just
> fill in the missing knowledge.
> 
> Could you pick a non-committer with the domain-specific knowledge you think a
> patch needs and ask for their analysis of the patch then commit it yourself?
> You can still review it for general code quality and trust the non-committer's
> review of whether the domain-specific change is correct.

We are already pushing out patches to people with domain-specific
knowledge.  Tom posted that summary today.

-- 
  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. +