Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>> I don't have a concrete proposal to make, but I do think that the
>>> current patch-queue process is not suited to the project as it stands
>>> today. Maybe if this issue-tracking stuff gets off the ground, we
>>> could let developers place ACK or NAK flags on patches they've looked
>>> at, and have some rule about ACK-vs-NAK requirements for something to go
>>> in.
>> How about *requiring* test cases that prove the patch?
>
> People including regression tests is not a replacement for code review.
Uhmmm, of course not? :). A test case does however help show that the
person thought through what they were doing :) Even if they were cranked
in the process.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
> For a non-trivial patch, an SQL test will only exercise a few code paths
.
> Moreover, it wont say anything about code quality, maintainability or
> general correctness or completeness. It will still have to be reviewed.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gavin
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL
solutionssince 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
