Simon Riggs wrote: > Requiring people to write docs or any other patch submission rules has > never been counterproductive. People could easily say, "English is not > my first language, therefore I skip all comments and docs". But they > don't, because we require that, as a hard rule. Nobody has ever said > enforcing *those* rules is counter productive. I don't see why adding > new requirements would be a problem - especially since they aim to > address problems with the flow of patches. Change will always seem > strange, but just like commitfests themselves the new way of working has > been quickly adopted without much complaint. Bottom line is if we all > spend all of our time developing and no time reviewing, then we > shouldn't be surprised if there is a review bottleneck. Everybody wants > their patches to go through, and the *fastest* way is actually for > people to assist with review. We just need an easily understood way of > implementing that. The 1:1 suggestion is one way, there may be others.
The docs case is a good example. We do ask people to write docs, but I don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs. I am not against any of the ideas suggested in this thread --- I am just pointing out we are heading in a very new direction with the _requirements_ mentioned. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
