Message-ID: <5112CE15.4060909@joh.to>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:41:41 +0100
From: Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail@joh.to>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
CC: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Considering Gerrit for CFs
References: <5112C602.3090109@agliodbs.com>
	<CABUevEyEyYZ58717QeVutJ0bgiN1fKDb0EEObVNax0+cZQRdJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5112CA4B.8030203@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <5112CA4B.8030203@agliodbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 06/02/2013 22:25, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Mind you, when I explained our current CF review workflow for the SF
> ReviewFest last year, the attendees thought I was insane. It's kept me
> from doing more reviewfests. Our current workflow and tooling is
> definitely a serious obstacle to gettng more reviewers.  Seems like a
> good topic for the developer meeting.

I'm honestly having a hard time believing this.  I've never thought of 
the commitfest workflow as complicated or burdensome.  I actually quite 
like how things are there at the moment.

Besides, if we can't expect people to spend 30 minutes figuring out the 
workflow, how on earth do we expect them to review patches?


Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers