Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:34:14 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Patch queue -> wiki
Message-ID: <20080408133414.GH5290@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <27307.1207361987@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<200804050236.m352aTY00979@momjian.us>
	<20080408124149.GD5290@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<87y77o4hkt.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87y77o4hkt.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)

Gregory Stark wrote:

> I would like to suggest a few attributes we want for each patch:

[...]

> My first instinct is to convert it to a table. But perhaps we could just stick
> these attributes in the current format as sublist items under each major
> bullet point.

I agree -- having these attributes on sight would be good.  OTOH it
wouldn't be good if having them means the wiki is much harder to edit,
which makes me think that a table is not a good idea.  Keeping the whole
thing easy to edit is important to keep overhead low.

Perhaps we should offer an empty template at the top of the page so that
when a submitter wants to add a new patch, he puts the empty fields
there so that a reviewer/commiter needs only complete them.

For "maturity" I think we should have "design", "WIP", "ready for final
review" (as in: the submitter thinks this is ready to commit),
"committed".  Having a "status: committed" means we no longer need to
move patches from one section to another.  (OTOH having a separate
section for committed patches is good because you can see at a glance
how the commitfest is progressing, so maybe this is not such a hot idea.)

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support