On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 09:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 07:49 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> A further point is that it's very difficult to
> >> keep track of progress if the CF page reflects a whole bunch of
> >> supposedly "Waiting on Author" patches that are really quite
> >> thoroughly dead.
> >
> > True, but the point under discussion is what to do if no reply is
> > received from an author. That is something entirely different from a
> > patch hitting a brick wall.
> >
> > We gain nothing by moving early on author-delay situations, so I suggest
> > we don't.
>
> No, we gain something quite specific and tangible, namely, the
> expectation that patch authors will stay on top of their patches if
> they want them reviewed by the community. If that expectation doesn't
> seem important to you, feel free to try running a CommitFest without
> it. If you can make it work, I'll happily sign on.
I don't think so. We can assume people wrote a patch because they want
it included in Postgres. Bumping them doesn't help them or us, since
there is always an issue other than wish-to-complete. Not everybody is
able to commit time in the way we do and we should respect that better.
Authors frequently have to wait a long time for a review; why should
reviewers not be as patient as authors must be?
We should be giving authors as much leeway as possible, or they may not
come back.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
