Re: Last gasp - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Last gasp
Date
Msg-id 1334165303.25392.9.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Last gasp  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Last gasp  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On ons, 2012-04-11 at 06:04 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> Compare with:
> 
> -Submitter suggests doc change
> -No one has a strong opinion on it, may not be picked up at all
> -Submitter adds to the next CF
> -Wait for review
> -[Possible repost update with reviewer changes]
> -Ready for committer
> -Committer takes time away from code review to look at it
> -Possibly another feedback/review resubmission
> -Commit final versions

I totally get that.

Just as a personal view, if people were to send me doc or "trivial"
patches in git-am format, with proper commit message, and Acked or
Signed-off etc. lines from recognized contributors, and proper
References: mail header linked to the discussion or "suggestion"
message, I could probably commit 20 of those in an hour.

Instead, I have to review the entire email thread for discussion, any
possible reviews or test runs, extract the patch from the email, mangle
it into proper form, apply it, think of a commit message, make sure I
register all the right people in the message, re-review the commit,
push, reply to email, optionally, log into commit fest, find the patch,
click a bunch of times, close it, done -- I think.  That takes 15
minutes per patch, and after two patches like that I'm tired.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Last gasp
Next
From: Joshua Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Last gasp