On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:41:02PM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
> > On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't "totally evilly
> >> draconian."
> >>
> >> There's a difference between:
> >>
> >> "You haven't reviewed any patches - we'll ignore you forever!"
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> "Since you haven't reviewed any patches, we are compelled to
> >> defer your patches until the next CommitFest."
> >>
> >> It's enough pain to make people think, but it's not *totally*
> >> punitive.
> >
> > It is important to remember we are all volunteers here. Any
> > increase to the barrier of contribution is a bad one.
>
> But this *isn't* a barrier to contribution, at least not notably
> more than the already existant issue that a paucity of reviewers is
> a barrier to contribution.
>
> It represents a policy for triaging review efforts with a bias in
> favor of those that *are* contributing to the reviewers' list.
>
> I don't think it's unjust for those that contribute to the review
> process to get more favorable scheduling of reviews to their
> patches.
>
> If we get so many reviewers that such triaging becomes unnecessary,
> then it may automatically *not* be a problem.
In the PostgreSQL Weekly News, I track patches, and apparently at
least one person reads that section. Would it be helpful to track
reviews somehow during commitfests with the reviewers' names
prominently attached?
It's a more positive approach, and like many others, I really prefer
those types of approaches, even if I grump occasionally. :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
