On 1/20/16 1:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> And, you know, I did my time fighting major wars to try to compress
> the release schedule, and honestly, it wasn't that much fun. The
> process we have now is imperfect in many ways, but I no longer have
> abuse heaped on me for wanting to boot a patch out of a CommitFest.
> That may be bad for the project, but it's spared me a lot of grief
> personally. I think that many other people are in the same situation.
> Everybody would like somebody else to be the schedule enforcer ...
> unless they have something that they still want to get in, in which
> case they would like nobody to do it.
Yeah, a lot of the ideas in this thread, while reasonable, are of the
sort "We need to be better about ..." which sounds a lot like "I need to
be better about exercising". A system based purely on distributed
willpower isn't going to last very long, as we are finding out.
Sure, I'd like more than one party to review my patches, and I'd like to
spend more time doing additional reviews on other people's patches. But
I can barely keep up as it is. I know we need code reviews, but I think
it's never going to work well to the point that we are satisfied with
it. Just look around the world, in software, open or commercial, or
even academics, and tell me who has peer reviews figured out.
My feeble attempts at alleviating this problem a bit are adding more
testing and removing outdated functionality, but both of those are also
incredibly abuse-prone activities.
FWIW, I do apologize for proposing the fifth commitfest (PGCon 2014).
