There's been a steady flow of messages on pgsql-advocacy since last
month (threads "Crediting sponsors in release notes?" and "Crediting
reviewers & bug-reporters in the release notes") talking about who/how
should receive credited for their work on PostgreSQL. That discussion
seems to be me heading in one inevitable direction: it's not going to
be possible to make everyone happy unless there's a way to track all of
these things for each feature added to PostgreSQL:
-Short description for the release notes
-Feature author(s)
-Reviewers and bug reporters
-Sponsors
-Main git commit adding the feature
Now, this is clearly the job for a tool, because the idea that any
person capable of doing this work will actually do it is
laughable--everyone qualified is too busy. It strikes me however that
the current production of the release notes is itself a time consuming
and error-prone process that could also be improved by automation. I
had an idea for pushing forward both these at once.
Committers here are pretty good at writing terse but clear summaries of
new features when they are added. These are generally distilled further
for the release notes. It strikes me that a little decoration of commit
messages might go a long way toward saving time in a few areas here.
I'll pick a simple easy example I did to demonstrate; I wrote a small
optimization to commit_delay committed at
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/e1pqp72-0001us...@gemulon.postgresql.org
This made its way into the release notes like this:
Improve performance of commit_siblings (Greg Smith)
This allows the use of commit_siblings with less overhead.
What if the commit message had been decorated like this?
Feature: Improve performance of commit_siblings
Optimize commit_siblings in two ways to improve group commit.
First, avoid scanning the whole ProcArray once we know there...
With that simple addition, two things become possible:
-Generating a first draft of the release notes for a new version could
turn into a script that parses the git commit logs, which has gotta save
somebody a whole lot of time each release that goes into the first draft
of the release notes.
-All of these other ways to analyze of the contributors would be much
easier to maintain. A little "Author:" decoration to that section of
each commit would probably be welcome too.
I'm sure someone is going to reply to this suggesting some git metadata
is the right way to handle this, but that seems like overkill to me. I
think there's enough committer time gained in faster release note
generation for this decoration to payback its overhead, which is
important to me--I'd want a change here to net close to zero for
committers. And the fact that it would also allow deriving all this
other data makes it easier to drive the goals rising out of advocacy
forward too.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US g...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
