Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 04/10/2012 09:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I wouldn't object to creating some doc-only committers. OTOH, I would
>> object to anyone making non-trivial documentation enhancements without
>> posting their patches first and having a second person look it over,
>> so how much difference is there, really?
> ...
> I'd like to dump around 50 pages of new material into the docs as a
> start, but I don't want to take so much time away from the code oriented
> committers to chew on that much.
Well, with all due respect, that does not sound like a change that
doesn't need review.
I have not noticed people adding docs-only changes to the CFs; usually
it's more like "post a patch, somebody looks it over and commits it".
I agree that this is still too much overhead for simple fixes, such
as the editorial glitches that Thom Brown is so good at finding
(and I'm about ready to vote to give him a commit bit for that work).
But a fifty-page chunk is not that, indeed it sounds like it would have
enough technical content that it might actually merit a full-scale
review.
regards, tom lane
