On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 07:09:24PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The current patch-queue process is failing to scale with the project: every
> > release it gets to be more work for you & Tom to integrate the patches. We
> > need to think of new approaches to make the review process scale. As a
> > pointed example, you're about to go on tour for 2 weeks and patch review will
> > stall while you're gone. That's not sustainable.
>
> I am traveling --- I left on Friday. I am in Sydney now.
>
> As far as scaling, patch information isn't our problem right now. If
> someone wants to help we can give them up-to-date information on exactly
> how to deal with the patch. It is people doing the work that is the
> bottleneck.
<snip>
> As an example, how is patch information going to help us review HOT or
> group-item-index? There is frankly more information about these in the
> archives than someone could reasonable read. What someone needs is a
> summary of where we are now on the patches, and lots of time.
>
> FYI, Tom, Heikki, I need one of you to post the list of patches and
> where we think we are on each one, even if the list is imperfect.
I think you just contradicted yourself. Information isn ot the problem, but
you need more information...
I think this is a fairly clear indication that we do need a better way to
track this information.
//Magnus
