Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I like the idea of having a sync point mid cycle, however, what I'd like > > to see even more is an improved system in which we put less pressure on > > the few committers we have, and give them more freedom to commit patches > > they may not understand fully themselves > > That is a recipe for disaster :-(. The real problem I see with the big > patches that are currently in the queue is that I'm not sure even the > authors understand the patches (or more accurately, all their potential > consequences) completely. Telling committers they should apply such > patches without having understood them either is just going to lead to > an unfixably broken system. > > [ thinks for a bit... ] What we need to expand is not so much the pool > of committers as the pool of reviewers. If a patch had been signed off > on by X number of reasonably-qualified people then it'd be fair to > consider that it could be committed. The tracking system you suggest > could make that sort of approach manageable.
I am still unclear how the patch would get into such a system, and how we would add comments, apply, and later remove it, without causing us even more work. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
