Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List
Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
From: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Maciej Gajewski <maciej.gajewski0@gmail.com>,
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>,
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-06-24T22:07:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 25/06/13 03:54, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > It is mentioned. Of course now I can't find it but it is there. > > However, I believe you are taking the wrong perspective on this. This is > not a shame wall. It is a transparent reminder of the policy and those > who have not assisted in reviewing a patch but have submitted a patch > themselves. > > In short, leave the ego at the door. > Lol - Josh's choice of title has made it a small shame wall (maybe only knee high). However as your last line says - no *actual* harm has been done (no kittens killed etc). One of the reasons for fewer reviewers than submitters, is that it is a fundamentally more difficult job. I've submitted a few patches in a few different areas over the years - however if I grab a patch on the queue that is not in exactly one of the areas I know about, I'll struggle to do a good quality review. Now some might say "any review is better than no review"... I don't think so - one of my patches a while was reviewed by someone who didn't really know the context that well and made the whole process grind to a standstill until a more experienced reviewer took over. I'm quite wary of doing the same myself - anti-help is not the answer! Regards Mark