| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest problems |
| Date: | 2014-12-12 18:07:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20141212180735.GA16437@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:50:56AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, one part of the point of the review mechanism is that it's supposed
> to provide an opportunity for less-senior reviewers to look at parts of
> the code that they maybe don't know so well, and thereby help grow them
> into senior people. If we went over to the notion of some one (or a few)
> senior people doing all the reviewing, it might make the review process
> more expeditious but it would lose the training aspect. Of course, maybe
> the training aspect was never worth anything; I'm not in a position to
> opine on that. But I don't really think that centralizing that
> responsibility would be a good thing in the long run.
That is a very good point --- we have certainly had people doing reviews
long enough to know if the review process is preparing developers for
more complex tasks. I don't know the answer myself, which might say
something.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-12-12 18:10:17 | Re: jsonb generator functions |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-12-12 18:04:38 | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |