Hi,
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Such as?
Dunno. Rules for sponsors? It would probably make sense to not only pay
a single developer to create and submit a patch, but instead plan for
paying others to review the code as well.
> You might think those arguments exist and work, but I would say
> they manifestly do not.
Most managers - especially within software companies I'd say - are
pretty much aware of how costly quality assurance (or the lack thereof)
can be, no?
What do you respond to potential sponsors who request that a new feature
must be accepted into Postgres itself?
Let's tell *them* that review is costly. Encourage them to pay others to
review your work, for example. Let's coopete ;-) (or whatever the verb
for coopetition is)
Maybe we can do more WRT organizing this reviewing process, including
payment. Some sort of bounty system or something. Dunno, this is just
some brainstorming.
> Almost all people doing reviews are people that
> have considerable control over their own time, or are directed by people
> that understand the Postgres review process and wish to contribute to it
> for commercial reasons.
Sure. I don't quite get where you are going with this argument, sorry.
Regards
Markus Wanner
