> Clearly I ticked off a bunch of people by publishing "the list". On the > other hand, in the 5 days succeeding the post, more than a dozen > additional people signed up to review patches, and we got some of the > "ready for committer" patches cleared out -- something which nothing > else I did, including dozens of private emails, general pleas to this > mailing list, mails to the RRReviewers list, served to accomplish, in > this or previous CFs.
Others rules appeared, like the 5 days limit. To me it outlines that some are abusing the CF app and pushing there useless patches (not still ready or complete, WIP, ...
Seems to me that "useless" overstates things, but it does seem fair to
say that some patches are not sufficiently well prepared to be efficiently added into Postgres.
> So, as an experiment, call it a mixed result. I would like to have some > other way to motivate reviewers than public shame. I'd like to have > some positive motivations for reviewers, such as public recognition by > our project and respect from hackers, but I'm doubting that those are > actually going to happen, given the feedback I've gotten on this list to > the idea.
You're looking at a short term, big effect. And long term ? Will people listed still be interested to participate in a project which stamps people ?
With or without review, it's a shame if people stop proposing patches because they are not sure to get time to review other things *in time*.
Well, if the project is hampered by not being able to get *all* the changes that people imagine that they want to put in, then we have a
real problem of needing a sort of "triage" to determine which changes
will be accepted, and which will not.
Perhaps we need an extra status in the CommitFest application, namely one that characterizes:
Insufficiently Important To Warrant Review
That's too long a term. Perhaps "Not Review-worthy" expresses it better?
-- When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
