Robert Haas wrote:
> >> We just wouldn't assign round-robin reviewers to such patches. ?If
> >> someone wants to volunteer, more power to them, but we would encourage
> >> people to focus their efforts on the patches of people who were
> >> themselves reviewing. ?It's important to keep in mind that "valid" is
> >> not a boolean. ?Some patches are perfect the day they roll in, but not
> >> too many. ?It takes work to get them committable, and I don't see why
> >> anyone should have an expectation that they can have that help for
> >> themselves without doing the same thing for other people.
> >
> > OK, but the problem I see there is that the reviewers are there to
> > assist the committers; ?if no one reviews something, it just makes more
> > work for the committers.
>
> That wasn't my intention. I really was assuming that we would just
> let those patches drop on the floor, and that they would not be picked
> up either by reviewers or committers. I don't think this would cause
> as many problems in practice as perhaps you fear, because I think it
> will just motivate people to act as reviewers. Writing a patch is
> typically more time-consuming than reviewing one, at least IME, with
> some exceptions of course. I wouldn't spend 20 hours writing a patch
> and then let it fall out because I wasn't willing to spend 2 or 3
> hours reviewing someone else's patch, and I don't think other regular
> contributors will either.
OK, but that is certainly a different system than we have now. In your
system, committers would be told to ignore patches that were submitted
by repeated patch submitters who never review, or even we just never put
on the commit fest page.
I am just trying to nail down exactly how that would work --- that's a
pretty Draconian system.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
