On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> On 2/8/13 5:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> But do you have any actual proof that the problem is in "we >>> loose reviewers because we're relying on email"? >> >> Here is one: Me. >> >> Just yesterday I downloaded a piece of software that was previously >> unknown to me from GitHub and found a bug. Within 15 minutes or so I >> had fixed the bug, made a fork, sent a pull request. Today I read, the >> fix was merged last night, and I'm happy. >> >> How would this go with PostgreSQL? You can use the bug form on the web >> site, but you can't attach any code, so the bug will just linger and >> ultimately put more burden on a core contributor to deal with the >> minutiae of developing, testing, and committing a trivial fix and >> sending feedback to the submitter. Or the user could take the high road >> and develop and patch and submit it. Just make sure it's in context >> diff format! Search the wiki if you don't know how to do that! Send it >> to -hackers, your email will be held for moderation. We won't actually >> do anything with your patch, but we will tell you to add it to that >> commitfest app over there. You need to sign up for an account to use >> that. We will deal with your patch in one or two months. But only if >> you review another patch. And you should sign up for that other mailing >> list, to make sure you're doing it right. Chances are, the first review >> you're going to get is that your patch doesn't apply anymore, but which >> time you will have lost interest in the patch anyway. > > This. This times 1000.
I, too, could not agree more. > I'm not sure if Gerrit specifically is the answer, but there are > definitely better ways to do code review like this. I really like the > way github allows you to post a patch and then have conversation > around it, offer comments on specific lines of code, and add updates > to the patch all in one interface. Another benefit is that a lot more > people are familiar and comfortable with this work flow. There are > even some open source work-a-likes that we could use to we don't have > to rely on a 3rd party like github. Gerrit seems to do it slightly > differently with side by side diff's and patch revisions, but either > way would be an improvement. Please take this for what it's worth - I'm not a code reviewer or committer - just a pretty heavy user, and I lurk on (most?) of the mailing lists. Mostly I find bugs and ask others to fix them, since I lack the necessary intimate knowledge of postgresql internals to produce a meaningful patch. That said, I believe that - from my perspective - having postgresql's interaction with it's *large* community would only be improved by using something like github. I am far more likely to try to introduce a new feature, minor bugfix, code improvement, et cetera when using github than I would be if the interaction starts with a post to a mailing list and at least /looks/ like it might involve rather more than that. -- Jon -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
