Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List
От | Christopher Browne |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFNqd5U9FbnnG7VmbECL34Unj0bThyMLD=UgghPWhVO8ttoxLQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List (Cédric Villemain <cedric@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List
Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Cédric Villemain <cedric@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Clearly I ticked off a bunch of people by publishing "the list". On theOthers rules appeared, like the 5 days limit.
> 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.
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.
added into Postgres.
> So, as an experiment, call it a mixed result. I would like to have someYou're looking at a short term, big effect.
> 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.
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
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:
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?"
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: