Re: Last gasp
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-04-10T19:00:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 10 April 2012 18:28, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't agree with that. I think that there are a few people who >> don't now have commit bits who should be given them - in particular, >> Fujii Masao and Kevin Grittner, both of whom have been doing >> consistently excellent work for several years. > I agree with you about both individuals. I hope that this happens > sooner rather than later. FYI, the core committee traditionally has a discussion about whom to appoint as new committers at the end of each release cycle. I'm sure we'll be thinking about these names this time. >> Giving more people the ability to >> commit stuff will neither force them to devote time to it nor make >> them qualified to do it if they aren't already. > One major component of being qualified, is, of course, knowing what > you don't know, and the risk of being left with egg on your face turns > out to be a pretty effective way of preventing new committers from > being too eager. Giving more people bits has a cost: in general, I'd > expect it to result in a higher bug-to-line ratio when code is > committed. However, not doing so has an opportunity cost: less code is > committed, which may, on balance, result in an inferior release than > what we could have had. Maybe you think that we have the balance > perfectly right, and you are of course perfectly entitled to that > view, as well as being perfectly entitled to having your opinion more > heavily weighed than mine, but I'd like to see a dialogue about it at > some point. We've done pretty well over the past fifteen years by being chary in handing out commit bits. I don't particularly want to change that policy. Obviously we do need a steady supply of new blood, since people do leave the project, but relaxing our standards doesn't seem like the way to get it. The impression I have is that we have a pretty good and even increasing supply of new interested people, so letting them acquire experience with the code base and eventually mature into qualified committers doesn't look like a dead-end strategy from here. regards, tom lane