On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Bruce Momjian
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >
>
> > > > This is one of the reasons I didn't want to add wiki maintenance to my
> > > > already full workload. Instead I am having to field complaints.
> > >
> > > I didn't mean to complain about anything. Personally, I'm in favor of
> > > reducing your workload.
> >
> > OK. FYI, what would be really nice would be for someone to review and
> > apply the patch or give the author feedback so we could avoid adding it
> > to the wiki at all.
> Yes, that would be nice! But not likely in practice, unless your
> patch happens to immediately catch the interest of a suitably
> qualified person with commit privileges.
>
> However, I don't know of any way the maintenance of the wiki is an
> addition to your workload. I feel that the onus of adding the patch
> to the wiki should be on the submitter, and we've already had some
> success getting submitters to add their own patches. And Alvaro has
> already offered to pick up the slack in cases where the submitter
> fails to add their patch to the queue.
One small point here. I've been mostly following this discussion on
this particular topic but have absolutely no idea what, if anything,
to do on the wiki in terms of submitting patch. There was a spot
related to the commit fest where we kept an to date version of our
patch which I can't find any more (might be lousy search skills on my
end).
There seems to be information scattered all over the place with
various overlapping lists whose function and location are changing
constantly. This is not a gripe by any means....it just that you
might get a little more help from the grass roots on the wiki as the
process settles down and there are examples of what to do.
merlin
