> Thanks. It sounds like worst-case scenario, I perform an unneeded
> review.  I'll give it a shot.

Hi guys,

Apologies for more boring process-related questions, but any pointers
would be greatly appreciated...

I'm a bit confused about how PG's code-review process is meant to
handle this C++ port.  My confusion may stem from the combination of
my inexperience with the process, and there being two competing patch

Here's some background:

* My intention was to review Joy's patch.

* On "commitfest.postgresql.org" (for 2016-09), the only C++
  -related patch I found was Peter's: [1]

* I wrongly assumed that the commitfest entry would be for
  Joy's patch, not Peter's, so I signed up as its reviewer.
  (That's fine - I don't mind reviewing both authors' patch

But here are my questions:

Q1) My understanding of PG's code-review process is that it's a pipeline:
    Step 1. The discussion starts on the pgsql-hackers mailing list, where
            the author posts a patch.  He/she may also post revised patches
            based on the discussion.

    Step 2. A subset of those discussions are modeled by new entries in
            the commitfest website.

    Step 3. A subset of those commitfest items get merged.

   If that's correct, then it sounds like the only way Joy's commit has
   a chance of acceptance is if Peter's commit is rejected.
   Because Peter's commit might be merged as part of the 2016-09
   commitfest, but Joy's can show up until 2016-11 at the earliest.

   Is my understanding correct?

There seems to be a little ambiguity regarding the exact version of
the code to be reviewed.  This is true for both Joy's and Peter's
   * Joy's email provides a link to a Github repo, but does not specify
     a particular commit (or even branch) in that repo: [2]

   * In the email thread, Peter did provide a patch set: [3]
     but the corresponding commitfest entry references a github branch: [4]

So I have a few questions here:

Q2) Are authors expected to submit an unambiguous patch to frame the
discussion?  (I.e,. a specific patch file, or a specific git commit
hash, as opposed to a github repo or a github branch.)

Q3) Are authors expected to submit a single patch/commit, or is it
acceptable / desirable for a large patch to be broken up as Peter has

Q4) Do we require that any submitted patches appear as attachments on
the pgsql-hackers email list, or is a github URL good enough?

Q5) (This question is more generic.)  I'm accustomed to using Github's
pull-request system, where I can engage in dialog regarding specifc
lines of a patch.  I haven't noticed anything similar being used for
PG code reviews, but perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong places.
Are all PG code reviews basically just back-and-forth email
conversations on the pgsql-hackers list?


[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/776/
[4] https://github.com/petere/postgresql/tree/commitfest/c%2B%2B

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to