-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Josh Berkus wrote:
> I wasn't thinking about doing it every year -- just for 9.3, in order to
> encourage more reviewers, and encourage reviewers to do more reviews.
- -1. It's not cool to set it up and then stop it the next go round.
You wan
Andrew Dunstan escribió:
>
> On 06/27/2013 02:38 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>If we're going to try harder to ensure that reviewers are credited,
> >>it'd probably be better to take both the commit log and the release
> >>notes out of that loop.
> >I'd pull the reviewers out of the CF app. Even in
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 02:17:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:10:23AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> What I would be opposed to is continuing to list the original authors in
> >> the release notes and putting reviewers, testers, co-authors, etc. o
On 06/27/2013 02:38 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
If we're going to try harder to ensure that reviewers are credited,
it'd probably be better to take both the commit log and the release
notes out of that loop.
I'd pull the reviewers out of the CF app. Even in its current
implementation, that's the e
> If we're going to try harder to ensure that reviewers are credited,
> it'd probably be better to take both the commit log and the release
> notes out of that loop.
I'd pull the reviewers out of the CF app. Even in its current
implementation, that's the easiest route.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreS
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:10:23AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> What I would be opposed to is continuing to list the original authors in
>> the release notes and putting reviewers, testers, co-authors, etc. on a
>> separate web page. If we're gonna move people, let's move
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:10:23AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 06/27/2013 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:> Adding the names to each
> release note item is not a problem; the
> > problem is the volume of names that overwhelms the release note text. If
> > we went that direction, I predict we wou
On 06/27/2013 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:> Adding the names to each
release note item is not a problem; the
> problem is the volume of names that overwhelms the release note text. If
> we went that direction, I predict we would just remove _all_ names from
> the release notes.
That's not a re
On 6/25/13 2:44 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On the other hand, I will point out that we currently have a shortage of
reviewers, and we do NOT have a shortage of patch submitters.
That's because reviewing is harder than initial development. The only
people who think otherwise are developers who don
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> It could be pretty satisfactory to have a simple listing, in the
>> release notes, of the set of reviewers. That's a lot less
>> bookkeeping than tracking this for each and every change.
> Adding the n
On 06/27/2013 12:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
It could be pretty satisfactory to have a simple listing, in the
release notes, of the set of reviewers. That's a lot less
bookkeeping than tracking this for each
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> b) It would be a pretty good thing to mention reviewers within commit notes;
> that provides some direct trace-back as to who it was that either validated
> that the change was good, or that let a bad one slip through.
>
> c) Th
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan
> wrote:
> > I'd like to see prizes each release for "best contribution" and "best
> > reviewer" - I've thought for years something like this would be worth
> > trying. Committers and core memb
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I'd like to see prizes each release for "best contribution" and "best
> reviewer" - I've thought for years something like this would be worth
> trying. Committers and core members should not be eligible - this is about
> encouraging new peop
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
> >
> > a) not at all
> > b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom.
> > c) on the patch they reviewed, for ea
On 27/06/13 07:12, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 06/26/2013 12:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
See the entry for foreign key locks:
Prevent non-key-field row updates from locking foreign key rows (Álvaro
Herrera, Noah Misch, Andres Freund, Alexander Shulgin, Marti Raudsepp)
I am the author of most
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
>> Well, one of the other "prizes" which occurred to me today would be a
>> pgCon lottery. That is, each review posted by a non-committer would go
>> in a hat, and in February we would draw one who would get a free
>>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
Without getting into how we do this, I thought it might be helpful to
share the reasons why I believe recognizing and expressing gratitude
to reviewers is a helpful, useful and gratifyi
On 06/26/2013 12:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> See the entry for foreign key locks:
>
> Prevent non-key-field row updates from locking foreign key rows (Álvaro
> Herrera, Noah Misch, Andres Freund, Alexander Shulgin, Marti Raudsepp)
>
> I am the author of most of the code, yet I chose to add
Bruce Momjian escribió:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:22:06PM -0300, Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote:
> > Checking release notes for 9.2.4
> >
> > you have Fix insecure parsing of server command-line switches
> > (Mitsumasa Kondo, Kyotaro Horiguchi)
> >
> > What about (it people think that it is good) a s
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:22:06PM -0300, Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:13:32 -0400
> > Production of the release notes was not the problem; it was the text
> > in the release notes. I don't see how we could modify the release
> > note format.
> >
>
> Well...
>
> Checking re
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:13:32 -0400
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:12:00PM -0300, Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:14:07 -0400
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> > > > On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:12:00PM -0300, Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:14:07 -0400
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> > > On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > > How should reviewers get credited in the relea
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:14:07 -0400
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> > On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
> > >
> > > a) not at all
> > > b) in a single block titled "Reviewe
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 06/26/2013 09:14 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
>>>
Josh Berkus writes:
> Well, one of the other "prizes" which occurred to me today would be a
> pgCon lottery. That is, each review posted by a non-committer would go
> in a hat, and in February we would draw one who would get a free
> registration and airfare to pgCon.
+1, I like that idea!
Rega
On 06/25/2013 08:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> It's not about the reviewers being less. It's a comparison of
> effort. The effort for a casual review simply isn't comparable with the
> effort spent on developing a nontrivial patch.
Remember: "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the f
On 06/26/2013 09:14 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
a) not at all
b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom.
c
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
> >
> > a) not at all
> > b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom.
> > c) on the patch they reviewed,
For me, B,B and another B works.
Regards,
Atri
--
Regards,
Atri
l'apprenant
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
>>
>> a) not at all
>> b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom.
>> c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch
>>
>
> b) Unless they contribute enough to the patch to be considered a co-
Brendan Jurd wrote
> On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus <
> josh@
> > wrote:
>> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
>>
>> a) not at all
>> b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom.
>> c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch
I think some con
On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
>
> a) not at all
> b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom.
> c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch
A weak preference for (c), with (b) running a close secon
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:17:07AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> I'd like to take a straw poll here on how we should acknowledge
> reviewers. Please answer the below with your thoughts, either on-list
> or via private email.
>
> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
On 25 June 2013 18:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> I'd like to take a straw poll here on how we should acknowledge
> reviewers. Please answer the below with your thoughts, either on-list
> or via private email.
>
> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
>
> a) not at all
>
On 06/25/2013 11:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-06-25 11:04:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
a) not at all
b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom.
c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch
C. The idea that reviewers are somehow less than authors is ra
On 06/25/2013 11:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-25 11:04:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> a) not at all
>>> b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom.
>>> c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch
>>
>> C. The idea that reviewers are somehow less than
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
> c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch
This not only makes sense, it also lets people reading release notes
know there's been a review, and how thorough it was. I know, all
chang
On 06/25/2013 01:17 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Hackers,
I'd like to take a straw poll here on how we should acknowledge
reviewers. Please answer the below with your thoughts, either on-list
or via private email.
How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
a) not at all
b) in a single
On 2013-06-25 11:04:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >a) not at all
> >b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom.
> >c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch
>
> C. The idea that reviewers are somehow less than authors is rather
> disheartening.
It's not about
On 06/25/2013 10:17 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Hackers,
I'd like to take a straw poll here on how we should acknowledge
reviewers. Please answer the below with your thoughts, either on-list
or via private email.
How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
a) not at all
b) in a singl
On 06/25/2013 10:46 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Not sure. Seems like it might be a way to spend a lot of effort without
> achieving all that much. But I can also imagine that it feels nice and
> encourages a casual reviewer/contributor.
>
> So it's either b) or c). Although I'd perhaps exclude regu
On 2013-06-25 10:17:07 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
>
> a) not at all
> b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom.
> c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch
b).
If the review was substantial enough the revi
On Tue, June 25, 2013 19:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom.
> Should there be a criteria for a "creditable" review?
b) yes, they have to do more than "it compiles"
> Should re
On 25.06.2013 20:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
Hackers,
I'd like to take a straw poll here on how we should acknowledge
reviewers. Please answer the below with your thoughts, either on-list
or via private email.
How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
a) not at all
b) in a single blo
Hackers,
I'd like to take a straw poll here on how we should acknowledge
reviewers. Please answer the below with your thoughts, either on-list
or via private email.
How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
a) not at all
b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at
46 matches
Mail list logo
