Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:46:24 +0000
>>> "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we'll have more success convincing patch authors to update a
>>>> wiki page, than we'll have to convince reviewers to do so. I know
>>>> that's true at least for me. If I want people to review my patch, I'm
>>>> ready to sing and dance if that's what it takes. But if there's extra
>>>> steps in reviewing a patch, I might just not bother.
>>> Well that is what my email is about, dropping extra steps :).
>>
>> I agree that that's a good objective, but I think a Wiki makes for a
>> crappy patch tracker.
>
> Sure, but let's not turn this into a bug/patch tracker discussion,
> please :-/. A wiki is not ideal, but it's there.
Yeah, let's keep focus on *this* commitfest for now. The only chance
anything will be used for that is if it exists, in production, for
postgresql, *today*.
If we want something else in the future, sure. Let's do this as an
iterative process.
> The main point of my proposal is: let's make the *authors* who want
> their stuff to be reviewed as part of a commitfest do the extra work.
> There would be no extra work required for patch reviewers.
I think that's perfectly reasonable. There *will* be small patches that
fall through the cracks of that, but we can deal with those outside the
process for now, I think.
//Magnus
