On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:50:28 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Greg Smith wrote:
> > Making sure nothing falls through the cracks is exactly the point
> > of an enforced workflow. It might be a manual operation, it might
> > be some piece of software, but ultimately you need a well-defined
> > process where things move around but don't get dropped. Exactly
> > how said enforcement happens is certainly open to discussion though.
>
> As a volunteer organization we don't have much enforcement control.
We don't? It's like this :)
"You want to submit a patch, this is how it's done."
"Oh... You don't want to do it that way?"
"Tough"
Why is it that because we are a volunteer organization we can't have
enforcement? You document the procedure, and every single time the
issue arises you paste a link with that procedure :)
> We can control what we do, but not require others to do anything.
We do it all the time now, or does Tom actually like going through all
the patches and rewriting half of them? There is a very distinct way we
allow things to happen in this community, let's not fool ourselves. It
is just a lot of it isn't documented so we have this fuzzy feeling of
being all malleable and not in control.
>
> And when we did whittle it down to a short list there were still very
> few people helping.
>
Yes and that is a much bigger problem.
Joshua D. Drake
--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
