Dave Page wrote:
> I'm not specifically talking about complex patches (nor am I talking at
> all about bug tracking) - there are a variety of patches in the queue,
> of varying complexity. Some have been there for months, and worse, some
> of them recieved little or no feedback when submitted leaving the
> authors completely in the dark about whether their work will be
> included, whether further changes are required, or whether they should
> continue with additional enhancements.
Agreed. Remember that patches queue is just patches that no one has
dealt with. It was never designed to be a community thing, but Tom and
others do pull from it as necessary. If the community dealt with all
patches, I wouldn't have to add anything to the queue.
> I'm not advocating committing patches that might destabilize the code,
> I'm suggesting making it easier for individual committers to make use of
> the knowledge and experience of everyone else in the community, whilst
> at the same time reducing the reliance on their own experience. Even now
> we occasionally see patches getting committed that (for example) Tom has
> rejected months earlier. At the very least a tracker should help prevent
> that happening, at best it will help committers work faster and more
> effectively because they have all the relevant discussion in front of them.
This gets back to the same issue as a bug trackers --- the information
has to be managed or it just becomes a dumping ground, and who is going
to do that if the community can't even comment on some patches.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
