>> The reviewing that happened during this CommitFest did not happen on
>> the basis of who was interested in which patches. There was a bit of
>> that, but for the most part people reviewed the patches that they were
>> asked to review. I assumed (am I the only one?) that the REASON why
>> we were not asked to review SE-PostgreSQL or Hot Standby is because
>> the committers were planning to do that themselves due to the
>> complexity of the patches.
>
> Actually, I did assign someone to do a build and specification review. But
> yes, I expected that the code review would *have* to be done by a long-term
> committer. I pretty much assume that of anything over 300 lines.
>
> The idea behind having new reviewers take on all the small patches, was, of
> course, to give the main committers more time with patches like SEPostgres.
> It worked with other stuff (like Windowing and CTE).
Right, so, then I'm not sure why Tom is taking the lack of review as a
sign of lack of interest.
...Robert
