On 16 Dec 2014 7:43 am, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 2014-12-15 21:18:40 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > On 12/15/2014 07:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > >> Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in
> > >> the release notes.
> > >
> > > Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way
> > > (and I'm tentatively on your side onthat one) and take that to imply
> > > that we don't want more reviewers.
> >
> > During that thread a couple people said that novice reviewers added no
> > value to the review process, and nobody argued with them then. I've
> > also been told this to my face at pgCon, and when I've tried organizing
> > patch review events. I got the message, which is why I stopped trying
> > to get new reviewers.
>
> I think there's a very large difference in what novice reviewers do. A
> schematic 'in context format, compiles and survives make check' type of
> test indeed doesn't seem to be particularly useful to me. A novice
> reviewer that tries out the feature by reading the docs noticing
> shortages there on the way, and then verifies that the feature works
> outside of the two regression tests added is something entirely
> different. Novice reviewers *can* review the code quality as well - it's
> just that many we had didn't.
>
> I think the big problem is that a good review takes time - and that's
> what many of the novice reviewers I've observed weren't really aware of.
The review docs also over-emphasise the mechanical parts of review around make check etc, which may make it seem like
thatalone is quite useful. When really it's just the beginning.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>
> --
> Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
