On Wednesday 02 May 2007 01:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > Actually, that can happen with the current system. The real blocker there
> > is that some people, particularly Tom, work so fast that there's no
> > chance for a new reviewer to tackle the easy stuff. Maybe the real
> > solution is to encourage some of our other contributors to get their feet
> > wet with easy patches so that they can help with the big ones later on?
>
> Yeah, I hear what you say. This is particularly a problem for small bug
> fixes: I tend to zing small bugs quickly, first because I enjoy finding/
> fixing them and second because I worry that they'll fall off the radar
> screen if not fixed. But I am well aware that fixing those sorts of
> issues is a great way to learn your way around the code (I think that's
> largely how I learned whatever I know about Postgres). I'd be more
> willing to stand aside and let someone else do it if I had confidence
> that issues wouldn't get forgotten. So in a roundabout way we come back
> to the idea that we need a bug tracker (NOT a patch tracker), plus
> people putting in the effort to make sure it stays a valid source
> of up-to-date info. Without the latter it won't really be useful.
>
Maybe you just need to have a 1 week clock skew when reading pgsql-bugs?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
