On 20 May 2015 at 03:13, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:55:11PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> > wrote: > > > I think part of that is saying "no" more efficiently, upfront. Which is > > > why I really want the triage step. > > > a) It's much better for the project to not have several "junior" > reviewers > > > first spend time on a patch, then have a small flamefest, and then > > > have somebody "senior" reject a patch in its entirety. That's a > waste > > > of everyone's effort and frustrating. > > > b) It's not that bad to hear a "no" as a new contributor soon after > > > submission. It's something entirely different to go through a long > > > bikeshedding, several revisions of reworking, just to be told in the > > > end that it was a bad idea from the get go. > > > > I agree this would help. Figuring out how to do it in a reasonable > > way would help a lot. If we could get say 4 committers to go through > > at the start of each CommitFest and each comment very briefly on 25% > > of the patches each (yes, no, or maybe, and a bit of justification), I > > bet that would streamline things considerably. If we could get each > > committer to go through 50% of the patches and do this, then each > > patch would get a quick opinion from two committers right at the > > outset. That would be even nicer. > > Brief committer appraisals are unhelpful individually, but patterns > matter. I > would make the questionnaire as simple as necessary to get 4-7 committer > evaluations per patch. Prefer 30-second analyses from each of five > committers, not 30-minute analyses from two. Starting point: > > Q: How much effort would it take to write, from scratch, a committable > patch for this feature? > A: Small | Medium | Large > > Q: Relative to the that effort level, how valuable is this feature once > committed? > A: Negative | Low | Medium | High > > Q: How suitable is the chosen design? > A: Wrong | Inconclusive | Right > > That should suffice to highlight doomed patches. With great submission > notes, > one can answer all three questions without opening the diff itself. Each > appraiser could cover every patch of a CommitFest in an hour or two.
I'm happy to participate as a "triager" and will follow whatever process we decide. I would very much like to make this something we do via the CF app. I believe we should include in our thinking how we nurture and grow reviewers, contributors and committers. I am more likely to treat a low-value patch seriously if it is an early contribution from someone, for example. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
