On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 13:34 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> > Requiring people to write docs or any other patch submission rules has
> > never been counterproductive. People could easily say, "English is not
> > my first language, therefore I skip all comments and docs". But they
> > don't, because we require that, as a hard rule. Nobody has ever said
> > enforcing *those* rules is counter productive.
>
> Requiring that someone document their own work is very different from
> requiring that they spend time reviewing someone elses entirely
> unrelated work, possibly in areas of which they have little or no
> understanding (which may well be an issue at times).
Of course: one requirement is for docs, the other for review.
OTOH they are both additional requirements around submitting a patch.
Once people accept that, it will all work.
All patches require review. If we have no mechanism for providing review
time, then *all* patches will stall. I think it is unfair and unwise to
assume that reviewers just turn up as needed. The reason we are having
this discussion is they plainly don't. We were worried about Tom getting
burnt out by it, now Robert is. I've no problem with arguing against my
specific idea for producing more review time, but if there is no
alternative proposal then all you are saying is "lets not fix the
current problem".
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
