On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-01-26 00:26:18 -0600, Joshua Berkus wrote: > > > The alternative to this is an aggressive recruitment and mentorship > > program to create more major contributors who can do deep review of > > patches. But that doesn't seem to have happened in the last 5 years, > > and even if we started it now, it would be 2 years before it paid off. > > I think the amount of review and maintenance time is the largest part of > the problem here, and is mostly unaffected by the manner we actually > schedule releases. The discussions around dropping patches on the floor > are partially a question of that, and partially a question of not > acceppting to maintain things that are of low interest. > > But I don't really see "aggressive recruitment and mentorship" really > fixing this, even though there are other good reasons to work more on > that side. I think more fundamentally the issue is that that doing a > "deep" review of a bigger patches takes so much time and knowledge, that > it's not realistic to do so in ones own time anymore. You can if you're > very dedicated over a long time, but realistically in most cases it > requires your employer having an interest in you doing that. Quite > obviously there's an increasing number of employers paying people to > submit things to postgres, whereas there seems no corresponding uptick > on the review side.
>
Yeah, I also share the same feeling, but I think there is more to it, even if
the employer is ready to support for the review of a patch which takes more
amount of time, the credit to reviewers is always on much lower side as
compare to the original Author even though the effort put by reviewer is
comparable to Author especially for somewhat complex patches.
