Given that we already have an issue with not having enough patch reviewers, I'm a bit concerned that encouraging drive-by patches would make that situation even worse. I'm not 100% sure that "it is too hard to submit my patch to PostgreSQL" is the project's core problem, either.
Even if it's just a partial move, it'll split review. And I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll manage to very clearly separate what's allowed to happen in github PRs, and what on the list.
-
-
I have to agree. I think that having an expedited review process for small changes (definition TBD) makes sense, but having multiple streams into the codebase would be a major headache.
-
Obviously, it's not without risks. I agree changes that are not obviously correct should be funneled to the list, and committers / reviewers should not be expected to watch GH. If there are volunteers willing to curate the GH queue, why not to give it a try?
- 12 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
You can review a patch on GH, have someone pick it up and commit it in he main repo (maybe with mandatory post to -hackers first). Then just close the PR with a comment.
-
I just about never happens that a random first timer's (others will know to submit to ML) patches are correct enough to not need back and forth. Or that even the intent is clear enough to just guess and do what you think is right.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.