On 9/5/08, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 16:03 +0200, Markus Wanner wrote:
> > > I don't *want* the rule, I just think we *need* the rule because
> > > otherwise sponsors/managers/etc make business decisions to exclude that
> > > aspect of the software dev process.
> >
> > I agree that making sponsors/managers/etc aware of that aspect of the
> > dev process is necessary and worthwhile. However, I don't think a rule
> > for *patch submitters* helps with that. There must be other ways to
> > convince managers to encourage reviewers.
>
> Such as? You might think those arguments exist and work, but I would say
> they manifestly do not. Almost all people doing reviews are people that
> have considerable control over their own time, or are directed by people
> that understand the Postgres review process and wish to contribute to it
> for commercial reasons.
Well, the number of companies who are *interested* their patches getting
in is rather small... I think it's more common for companies to think
they are already donating to Postgres by encouraging their staff to
write patches and publish them.
So such applying such strict policy for everyone seems bad idea.
Although I quite agree on strongly encouraging patch submitters to review.
And those 3-4 companies who have direct commercial interests in Postgres
development should probably internally rethink their time allocation.
Note also we are only on our 2nd commitfest so its quite normal that
people are not used to the process .
We need to work few political aspects:
* Making reviewers to more at ease.
* Encouraging patch submitters to review.
And technical aspects:
* The (hopefully short and relaxed) rules for reviewers should be more visible. Best would be on (every) Commitfest
page.
* Wiki editing rules should be visible.
Well, and then:
* Although the wiki looks nice it's pain to operate.
--
marko
