On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> No, the column is very clearly labelled "Reviewers", not "Reviewer". >> And we have certainly had patches with more than one person's name in >> that field in the past. The issue is rather that we don't have enough >> people reviewing. We haven't had enough people volunteer to do >> reviews to even assign ONE person to each patch, let alone two. There >> are, as of this writing, SEVEN patches that have no reviewer at all. > > Some of them might be too difficult to review. For example, replication > or snapshot management requires special skills to review. > > I'm worrying about new reviewers hesitate to review a patch that has > a previous reviewer, and then, if they think the remaining patches are > too difficult for them, they would just leave the commitfest page. That's a legitimate concern, but I am not sure how much of a problem it is in practice. Most people who become round-robin reviewers are getting pulled into the process a little more than just stumbling across the CF page by happenstance, or at least I hope they are. Not all patches can benefit from multiple reviewers, but CF managers can and should encourage multiple reviews of those that can. However, at the moment, the problem is that regardless of who is assigned to do what, we're not getting enough reviews done. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
