Simon Riggs wrote:
> Requiring people to write docs or any other patch submission rules has
> never been counterproductive. People could easily say, "English is not
> my first language, therefore I skip all comments and docs". But they
> don't, because we require that, as a hard rule. Nobody has ever said
> enforcing *those* rules is counter productive. I don't see why adding
> new requirements would be a problem - especially since they aim to
> address problems with the flow of patches. Change will always seem
> strange, but just like commitfests themselves the new way of working has
> been quickly adopted without much complaint. Bottom line is if we all
> spend all of our time developing and no time reviewing, then we
> shouldn't be surprised if there is a review bottleneck. Everybody wants
> their patches to go through, and the *fastest* way is actually for
> people to assist with review. We just need an easily understood way of
> implementing that. The 1:1 suggestion is one way, there may be others.
The docs case is a good example. We do ask people to write docs, but I
don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs. I am
not against any of the ideas suggested in this thread --- I am just
pointing out we are heading in a very new direction with the
_requirements_ mentioned.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
