On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > To use a personal example I don't think is unique, I would set aside more > time to hack on the documentation if I didn't have to bug one of the > existing committers each time I wanted to work on something there. It really > feels like I'm wasting the time of someone who could be doing more difficult > things every time I submit a doc patch. I'd merrily write more of those and > consume things like the never ending stream of corrections from Thom Browne > if I could turn that into a larger part of my job. I don't do more of that > now because it's very unsatisfying work unless you can do the whole thing > yourself. Knowing everything is going to pass through another person > regardless removes some of the incentive to polish something until it's > perfect for submitters.
I wouldn't object to creating some doc-only committers. OTOH, I would object to anyone making non-trivial documentation enhancements without posting their patches first and having a second person look it over, so how much difference is there, really? > As for broader concerns about whether people will alter their quality of > work based on being able to commit, I'd suggest turning a look at yourself. > Your quality of work was high before it was a primary job goal, but it's > surely gotten better now that it is, right? Seems that way to me at least. I think my quantity of work has gone up. I'm not sure the quality is much different, although perhaps I've gotten a bit sharper with practice. > I'm somewhat oddly pleased at how the overflow of incoming submissions for > 9.2 has raised questions around not having enough active committers. I hope > decisions about adding more recognizes that distributing that power really > does influence the ability of people to contribute, on average in a positive > way. All I see coming for next year is a dramatic increase in this class of > problem. My perception of what's going on here is dramatically different from yours. I don't think there was any overflow of submissions for 9.2. For the most part I would describe it as a slow and boring release cycle, with the usual spike in half-baked submissions right near the end, except this release they were less baked than usual, which is why most of them didn't go in. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
