To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report 
In-reply-to: <200705012151.51915.josh@agliodbs.com> 
References: <200705012309.l41N9O908241@momjian.us>
	<200705012151.51915.josh@agliodbs.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
	message dated "Tue, 01 May 2007 21:51:51 -0700"
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 01:19:45 -0400
Message-ID: <5678.1178083185@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Actually, that can happen with the current system. The real blocker there is 
> that some people, particularly Tom, work so fast that there's no chance for a
> new reviewer to tackle the easy stuff.  Maybe the real solution is to 
> encourage some of our other contributors to get their feet wet with easy 
> patches so that they can help with the big ones later on?

Yeah, I hear what you say.  This is particularly a problem for small bug
fixes: I tend to zing small bugs quickly, first because I enjoy finding/
fixing them and second because I worry that they'll fall off the radar
screen if not fixed.  But I am well aware that fixing those sorts of
issues is a great way to learn your way around the code (I think that's
largely how I learned whatever I know about Postgres).  I'd be more
willing to stand aside and let someone else do it if I had confidence
that issues wouldn't get forgotten.  So in a roundabout way we come back
to the idea that we need a bug tracker (NOT a patch tracker), plus
people putting in the effort to make sure it stays a valid source
of up-to-date info.  Without the latter it won't really be useful.

			regards, tom lane