> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I see that Brendan has proposed the following definition on
> > CommitFest:Help:
> I wouldn't say I did anything so formal as proposing a definition =)
>
> Someone mentioned that a column to indicate who's handling each patch
> would be nice, so I added it. The comments in :Help were really just
> an example to explain how you might use the feature.
>
> I'm not looking to formulate commitfest procedure here (I don't have
> quite that level of hubris), just providing some tools to get the job
> done more comfortably.
>
> > I'm not too pleased with this because it suggests that "reviewing" is
> > something only one person can do at a time. What I'd like to see is
> > guidelines more along these lines:
>
> By all means, go ahead and make these changes. I think your version
> makes a lot of sense.
Certainly having a column mostly set to "nobody" isn't much use. People
want to help, but that's hard when we have no way of knowing which
patches might be ones that are considered open to general review and
which ones are Tom-only.
I added my name to a few patches only to assist with distribution of
work, so people don't waste time, not to "claim them". I figured the
only reason others hadn't done it was 'cos the coding the Wiki was
slightly fiddly.
Completely agree that there isn't/shouldn't be a single reviewer on an
item, but realistically if one of us is obviously reviewing something,
people will work on others while they do that. After that initial review
others join in to check quality. We probably do need to mark them in
some way to say "I am in the process of reviewing this", so we don't
duplicate effort (by mistake).
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
No comments:
Post a Comment