On 2014-12-15 21:18:40 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 12/15/2014 07:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in
> >> the release notes.
> >
> > Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way
> > (and I'm tentatively on your side onthat one) and take that to imply
> > that we don't want more reviewers.
>
> During that thread a couple people said that novice reviewers added no
> value to the review process, and nobody argued with them then. I've
> also been told this to my face at pgCon, and when I've tried organizing
> patch review events. I got the message, which is why I stopped trying
> to get new reviewers.
I think there's a very large difference in what novice reviewers do. A
schematic 'in context format, compiles and survives make check' type of
test indeed doesn't seem to be particularly useful to me. A novice
reviewer that tries out the feature by reading the docs noticing
shortages there on the way, and then verifies that the feature works
outside of the two regression tests added is something entirely
different. Novice reviewers *can* review the code quality as well - it's
just that many we had didn't.
I think the big problem is that a good review takes time - and that's
what many of the novice reviewers I've observed weren't really aware of.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
