Robert Treat wrote:
No offense, a whole lot of this thread seems to be positioned that way, but
the real problem seems to be we do not have enough patch reviewers. ISTM the
questions we should be asking are who can actually help out with patch review
and then ask those people why they haven't done it. If folks like Peter,
Andrew, Magnus, Simon, Joe, and Niel all say that they are not reviewing
patches because they can't find the patches that need review, they can't
figure out who is reviewing what, or they don't think anyone is paying
attention when they do review something, then I think we have a serious
problem and we certainly need to change processes. What I think you'll find
is that they are all just busy working on other things, which in that case I
think we need to figure out how to motivate them to focus on the patch queue
rather than other items. IMHO
I think that if all the patches are listed with all relevant context
information on a webpage, then people can more easily jump in when they
unexpectedly have time (or prefer to procrastinate some other real world
thing they should rather work on). Right now if you have a few hours to
spare you do not have all the information readily available. Even worse
by inquiring for the information you might feel you are commiting more
than you really wanted to. This kind of information needs to be right
there without any person having to actively provide it upon inquiry.
regards,
Lukas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
