Junio C Hamano wrote: > I am reasonably sure I and a few others on the list are net > suppliers of the reviewer bandwidth. I do not expect all the > prolific contributors to become net suppliers; after all, designing > and writing their own stuff is always fun. But I wish that the most > prominent contributors in the community to be reviewing others' > topics and ushering these topics to completion from time to time, > and I am hoping to see that happen more. The problem is that the suppliers are a club who often agree on what code is not ready to be merged, which is most of it, and also agree it's better to apply the reject hammer. This club is by definition small. There's a spectrum of perfectness, and the suppliers are on the far left side: code has to be perfect, while most of the consumers are on the right side, or even on the sensible middle side: do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. For the suppliers club good is usually not good enough. I'm fairly confident most of the consumers would agree the bar on what constitutes "good enough" is too damn high, so why would they spend time raising it any higher? They won't. If anything they are more often going to dissagree with the suppliers club, in order to increase the likelihood of perfectly good patches to be merged. As long as you keep insisting on making the perfect being the enemy of the good, you are going to ensure the supply is *always* going to be low. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
