Message-ID: <4639F19F.8030500@dunslane.net>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 10:28:47 -0400
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.8.0.10) Gecko/20070301 Fedora/1.0.8-0.6.2.fc6 pango-text
	SeaMonkey/1.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
CC: Csaba Nagy <nagy@ecircle-ag.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
	postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report
References: <200705031151.l43BpIf25652@momjian.us>
In-Reply-To: <200705031151.l43BpIf25652@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Csaba Nagy wrote:
>   
>>> We have _ample_ evidence that the problem is lack of people able to
>>> review patches, and yet there is this discussion to track patches
>>> better.  It reminds me of someone who has lost their keys in an alley,
>>> but is looking for them in the street because the light is better there.
>>>       
>> Bruce, I guess the analogy fails on the fact that you're not looking for
>> a key, but for people, and I thought "better light" will attract people
>> to find you instead of you to need to search...
>>     
>
> I believe the problem is not that there isn't enough information, but
> not enough people able to do the work.  Seeking solutions in areas that
> aren't helping was the illustration.
>
>   

There are multiple problems.

Of course no amount of technology will provide us with a bigger pool of 
qualified reviewers. That doesn't mean our present management methods 
are good - you seem to be just about the only person left who thinks 
they are.  Moving from using a quill to using a fountain pen or even a 
ballpoint doesn't mean we have more writers or better writers. But it 
does make writing easier and is therefore a good thing to do.

cheers

andrew