Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>
> > No offense, a whole lot of this thread seems to be positioned that way, but
> > the real problem seems to be we do not have enough patch reviewers. ISTM the
> > questions we should be asking are who can actually help out with patch review
> > and then ask those people why they haven't done it. If folks like Peter,
> > Andrew, Magnus, Simon, Joe, and Niel all say that they are not reviewing
> > patches because they can't find the patches that need review, they can't
> > figure out who is reviewing what, or they don't think anyone is paying
> > attention when they do review something, then I think we have a serious
> > problem and we certainly need to change processes. What I think you'll find
> > is that they are all just busy working on other things, which in that case I
> > think we need to figure out how to motivate them to focus on the patch queue
> > rather than other items. IMHO
>
> I think that if all the patches are listed with all relevant context
> information on a webpage, then people can more easily jump in when they
> unexpectedly have time (or prefer to procrastinate some other real world
> thing they should rather work on). Right now if you have a few hours to
> spare you do not have all the information readily available. Even worse
> by inquiring for the information you might feel you are commiting more
> than you really wanted to. This kind of information needs to be right
> there without any person having to actively provide it upon inquiry.
OK, how does that happen without a lot of work, or moving all discussion
on to a web-based system?
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
