Gregory Stark wrote: > > "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > We seem to handle trivial patches just fine. > > You keep saying that but I think it's wrong. There are trivial patches that > were submitted last year that are still sitting in the queue.
You seem to be looking at something different than me. Which patches? > In fact I claim we handle complex patches better than trivial ones. HOT, LDC, > DSM etc receive tons of feedback and acquire a momentum of their own. > Admittedly GII is a counter-example though. > > Well, I claim it's often the trivial patches that require the domain-specific > knowledge you describe. If they were major patches they would touch more parts > of the system. But that means they should be easy to commit if you could just > fill in the missing knowledge. > > Could you pick a non-committer with the domain-specific knowledge you think a > patch needs and ask for their analysis of the patch then commit it yourself? > You can still review it for general code quality and trust the non-committer's > review of whether the domain-specific change is correct. We are already pushing out patches to people with domain-specific knowledge. Tom posted that summary today. -- 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 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
