Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYo9YcBA0VtU0f3PxCPN=4NCR2O4-QgwM+hNo08wU3uxg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose  (Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>)
Responses Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose
Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 3:51 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-05-17 at 13:12 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > > Long time ago there was a "rule" that people submitting patches are expected
> > > to do reviews. Perhaps we should be more strict this.
> >
> > Big -1. How would we even be more strict about this? Public shaming? Withholding a commit?
>
> I think it is a good rule.  I don't think that it shouldn't lead to putting
> people on the pillory or kicking their patches, but I imagine that a committer
> looking for somebody else's patch to work on could prefer patches by people
> who are doing their share of reviews.

If you give me an automated way to find that out, I'll consider paying
some attention to it. However, in order to sort the list of patches
needing review by the amount of review done by the patch author, we'd
first need to have a list of patches needing review.

And right now we don't, or at least not in any usable way.
commitfest.postgresql.org is supposed to give us that, but it doesn't.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Propagate sanity checks of ProcessUtility() to standard_ProcessUtility()?
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index.