Greg,
As far as motivating new reviewers goes, let's talk about positive
feedback. Anything that complicates the release notes is a non-starter
because that resource is tightly controlled by a small number of people,
and it's trying to satisfy a lot of purposes.
Greg, you're re-arguing
On 6/24/13 12:57 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Maciej is correct that this policy also belongs on the how to submit a
patch wiki page. I will remedy that.
I just reviewed and heavily updated the new section you added to
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch That included the
idea
On 7/3/13 7:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The extrapolation of Josh's approach is that committers
have to do work that the community wants to maintain their commit
rights, but their commit rights are helping the community, so why would
people care if you take them away --- you only hurt the
On 07/05/2013 02:34 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Cédric Villemain
ced...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
Others rules appeared, like the 5 days limit.
The limit was previously 4 days (at least
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
Is there anyone else on the committer list with similar circumstances?
I'll just flip it around and offer to be publically flogged whenever I'm
not helping out with a commitfest. :) Perhaps this should be more
opt-in than opt-out, wrt committers anyway.
- Original Message -
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
Is there anyone else on the committer list with similar circumstances?
I'll just flip it around and offer to be publically flogged whenever I'm
not helping out with a commitfest. :) Perhaps this should be more
opt-in
All,
I think that's way over the top. Can we all just cool down a bit? I
really don't see Josh as Stalin.
I don't either. It is the judging others efforts that concerns me.
I agree that publishing the committer portion of the list was a mistake,
and will not include it in the future CFM
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
You know what this reminds me of --- early communist movements. Members
were scrutinized to see if they were working hard enough for the
cause, and criticized/shamed/punished if they were not. The leaders
became
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Cédric Villemain
ced...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
Clearly I ticked off a bunch of people by publishing the list. On the
other hand, in the 5 days succeeding the post, more than a
On 04/07/13 10:43, Robert Haas wrote:
And
people who submit patches for review should also review patches: they
are asking other people to do work, so they should also contribute
work.
I think that is an overly simplistic view of things. People submit
patches for a variety of reasons, but
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 03:34:06PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 07/03/2013 03:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
You are way out of line. You have no right to expect ANYONE to
participate in patch review and commit. Michael is doing us a favor
by maintaining ECPG even though he's not heavily
On 07/04/2013 09:09 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 03:34:06PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 07/03/2013 03:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
You are way out of line. You have no right to expect ANYONE to
participate in patch review and commit. Michael is doing us a favor
by
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 09:16:22AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 07/04/2013 09:09 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 03:34:06PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 07/03/2013 03:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
You are way out of line. You have no right to expect ANYONE to
participate in
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 08:08:57PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
On 04/07/13 10:43, Robert Haas wrote:
And
people who submit patches for review should also review patches: they
are asking other people to do work, so they should also contribute
work.
I think that is an overly simplistic view
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 04:00:22PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
make you review patches against your will. Don't take it for more
than what Josh meant it as.
And that was what?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:42:43PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Clearly I ticked off a bunch of people by publishing the list. On the
other hand, in the 5 days succeeding the post, more than a dozen
additional people signed up to review patches, and we got some of the
ready for committer patches
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Michael Meskes mes...@postgresql.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 04:00:22PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
make you review patches against your will. Don't take it for more
than what Josh meant it as.
And that was what?
An attempt to prod a few more people into
Clearly I ticked off a bunch of people by publishing the list. On the
other hand, in the 5 days succeeding the post, more than a dozen
additional people signed up to review patches, and we got some of the
ready for committer patches cleared out -- something which nothing
else I did,
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Cédric Villemain ced...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
Clearly I ticked off a bunch of people by publishing the list. On the
other hand, in the 5 days succeeding the post, more than a dozen
additional people signed up to review patches, and we got some of the
ready
Tatsuo,
Because I did not register the patch into CF page myself. I should
have not posted it until I find any patch which I can take care
of. Sorry for this.
My apologies! I did post the list of patches I'd added to the CF in my
patch sweep to -hackers, but I forgot to match it against the
Michael Meskes wrote:
So, as an experiment, call it a mixed result. I would like to have some
other way to motivate reviewers than public shame. I'd like to have
Doesn't shame imply that people knew that were supposed to review patches in
the first place? An implication that is not true,
Le mercredi 3 juillet 2013 21:03:42, Christopher Browne a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Cédric Villemain
ced...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
Clearly I ticked off a bunch of people by publishing the list. On
the other hand, in the 5 days succeeding the post, more than a dozen
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:34:50PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Michael Meskes wrote:
So, as an experiment, call it a mixed result. I would like to have some
other way to motivate reviewers than public shame. I'd like to have
Doesn't shame imply that people knew that were supposed to
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 09:47:13AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
An attempt to prod a few more people into helping review.
I can see that this pissed you off, and I'm sorry about that. But I
don't think that was his intent.
I hoped for this kind of answer from him but ...
Michael
--
Michael
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 04:03:08PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I do understand Josh's frustration that something different had to be
done.
As a matter of fact I do, too. I just think the style of blaming people in
public like this is not ideal.
As I said I didn't even notice this email in the
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 12:34:50PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
If you didn't feel obligated, you wouldn't be pissed at me. You'd just
blow it off (like Bruce did). I think you're angry with me because you
feel guilty.
That is outrageous bullshit!
My *personal* viewpoint is that all
On 07/03/2013 02:03 PM, Michael Meskes wrote:
I won't go into details here because frankly why I have no time for reviewing
a
patch is none of your business.
Then just send an email saying Sorry, I don't have any time for patch
review this time. Maybe next time. It's pretty simple.
I'm
On 2013-07-03 14:16:09 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 07/03/2013 02:03 PM, Michael Meskes wrote:
I won't go into details here because frankly why I have no time for
reviewing a
patch is none of your business.
Then just send an email saying Sorry, I don't have any time for patch
review
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I'm not going to apologize for expecting *committers* to participate in
patch review and commit.
You are way out of line. You have no right to expect ANYONE to
participate in patch review and commit. Michael is doing us a
On 07/03/2013 03:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
You are way out of line. You have no right to expect ANYONE to
participate in patch review and commit. Michael is doing us a favor
by maintaining ECPG even though he's not heavily involved in the
project any more and has other things to do with his
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 07/03/2013 03:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
You are way out of line. You have no right to expect ANYONE to
participate in patch review and commit. Michael is doing us a favor
by maintaining ECPG even though he's not heavily
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 03:34:06PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 07/03/2013 03:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
You are way out of line. You have no right to expect ANYONE to
participate in patch review and commit. Michael is doing us a favor
by maintaining ECPG even though he's not heavily
First of all, I'd like to give a big Thank You to all the hackers and
slackers that make Postgres great. You've really done an amazing job.
I'll step up and take a healthy portion of the blame here. I enjoy the
awesome features fixes that all of you put out year after year, but I
have yet to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Josh Berkus replied:
I won't go into details here because frankly why I have no time
for reviewing a patch is none of your business.
Then just send an email saying Sorry, I don't have any time for patch
review this time. Maybe next
Sorry for joining the thread this late, but I didn't really expect to see
myself listed as a slacker on a public list.
Additionally, the following committers are not listed as reviewers on
any patch. Note that I have no way to search which ones might be
*committers* on a patch, so these folks
Folks,
For 9.2, we adopted it as policy that anyone submitting a patch to a
commitfest is expected to review at least one patch submitted by someone
else. And that failure to do so would affect the attention your patches
received in the future. For that reason, I'm publishing the list
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:52:26AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
Sorry for joining the thread this late, but I didn't really expect to see
myself listed as a slacker on a public list.
Additionally, the following committers are not listed as reviewers on
any patch. Note that I have no way
On 07/02/2013 11:30 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Folks,
For 9.2, we adopted it as policy that anyone submitting a patch to a
commitfest is expected to review at least one patch submitted by someone
else. And that failure to do so would affect the attention your patches
received in the future.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
I guess whoever registered it with CF should also take your place on the
slackers list ;)
Yeah, I recommend that, in the future, CF managers do NOT go and add
patches to the CF. Pinging newbies to see if they just forgot is
On 2013/07/02, at 23:44, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I understand. You could wear slacker as a badge of honor: ;-)
http://momjian.us/main/img/main/slacker.jpg
This picture could make a nice T-shirt btw.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Hackers,
Clearly I ticked off a bunch of people by publishing the list. On the
other hand, in the 5 days succeeding the post, more than a dozen
additional people signed up to review patches, and we got some of the
ready for committer patches cleared out -- something which nothing
else I did,
Hi,
Apologies for being unable to respond promptly. I've been traveling
(without much access) and this was the fastest I could settle down. I was
free for months and had to travel smack in the middle of the commitfest.
Incidentally I had reviewed one patch after your direct email, but as
someone
On 25/06/13 15:56, Tom Lane wrote:
Mark Kirkwood mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz writes:
One of the reasons for fewer reviewers than submitters, is that it is a
fundamentally more difficult job. I've submitted a few patches in a few
different areas over the years - however if I grab a patch on
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
FWIW, a large part of the reason for the commitfest structure is that
by reviewing patches, people can educate themselves about parts of the
PG code that they don't know already, and thus become better qualified
to do more
On 25 June 2013 04:13, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On 06/24/2013 10:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-06-24 10:50:42 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
This project is enormously stingy with giving credit to people. It's
not like it costs us money, you know.
I am all for
On 06/24/2013 12:41 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
For 9.2, we adopted it as policy that anyone submitting a patch to a
commitfest is expected to review at least one patch submitted by someone
else. And that failure to do so would affect the attention your patches
received in the future. For
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I think we maybe need to be a bit more careful about a name and shame
policy, or it will be ignored.
I very much don't like that idea of publishing a list of names either.
Editing the reviewer field and sending personal notices is fine by me,
but name
Maybe this policy should be mentioned on the Wiki, so newbies like myself
(who wouldn't even dare reviewing patches submitted be seasoned hackers)
are not surprised by seeing own name on a shame wall?
M
On 06/24/2013 05:40 PM, Maciej Gajewski wrote:
Maybe this policy should be mentioned on the Wiki, so newbies like
myself (who wouldn't even dare reviewing patches submitted be seasoned
hackers) are not surprised by seeing own name on a shame wall?
I personally would prefer if the email was
On 06/24/2013 08:40 AM, Maciej Gajewski wrote:
Maybe this policy should be mentioned on the Wiki, so newbies like
myself (who wouldn't even dare reviewing patches submitted be seasoned
hackers) are not surprised by seeing own name on a shame wall?
It is mentioned. Of course now I can't find
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
In short, leave the ego at the door.
That's not the problem. Let's welcome those who are able to contribute
their time and skills without making it harder for them. Motivation here
shoulnd't be how to avoid getting enlisted on the shame wall.
My
On 06/24/2013 05:54 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 06/24/2013 08:40 AM, Maciej Gajewski wrote:
Maybe this policy should be mentioned on the Wiki, so newbies like
myself (who wouldn't even dare reviewing patches submitted be seasoned
hackers) are not surprised by seeing own name on a shame
On 06/24/2013 08:01 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I think we maybe need to be a bit more careful about a name and shame
policy, or it will be ignored.
I very much don't like that idea of publishing a list of names either.
Editing the reviewer field
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
patch. The vast majority chose not to respond to my email to them at
all. When private email fails, the next step is public email.
The only problem I have here is that I don't remember about deciding to
publish a list of failures by public email at all. I
On 06/24/2013 10:02 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
patch. The vast majority chose not to respond to my email to them at
all. When private email fails, the next step is public email.
The only problem I have here is that I don't remember about deciding to
On 2013-06-24 10:10:11 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 06/24/2013 10:02 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
patch. The vast majority chose not to respond to my email to them at
all. When private email fails, the next step is public email.
The only problem I
Instead, I don't know, fetch some SPI money to offer a special poster or
unique one-time-edition only hoodie or a signed mug or whatever to extra
proficient contributors and turn that into a game people want to win.
I like that idea too. Provided that we allocate enough funding that I
can
On 06/24/2013 10:10 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 06/24/2013 10:02 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
patch. The vast majority chose not to respond to my email to them at
all. When private email fails, the next step is public email.
The only problem I have here
I will be more than happy to resign as CFM and turn it over to someone
else if people have a problem with it.
Heck, Josh. People have to be allowed to critize *a small part* of your
work without you understanding it as a fundamental request to step back
from being CFM.
Criticize, yes.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I will be more than happy to resign as CFM and turn it over to someone
else if people have a problem with it.
Heck, Josh. People have to be allowed to critize *a small part* of your
work without you understanding it as a
On 06/24/2013 10:22 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Mind you, we wouldn't be able to reward a few reviewers, because they
live in countries to which it's impossible to ship from abroad.
I have previously proposed that all of the reviewers of a given
PostgreSQL release be honored in the release notes
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I have previously proposed that all of the reviewers of a given
PostgreSQL release be honored in the release notes as a positive
incentive, and was denied on this from doing so. Not coincidentally, we
don't seem to have any
On 2013-06-24 10:37:02 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 06/24/2013 10:22 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Mind you, we wouldn't be able to reward a few reviewers, because they
live in countries to which it's impossible to ship from abroad.
I have previously proposed that all of the reviewers of a
JD said:
Leave your ego at the door. Josh is doing what could be considered one
of the most thankless (public) jobs in this project. How about we
support him in getting these patches taken care of instead of whining
about the fact that he called us out for not doing our jobs (reviewing
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Actually, every submitter on that list -- including Maciej -- was sent a
personal, private email a week ago. A few (3) chose to take the
opportunity to review things, or promised to do so, including a brand
new Chinese
On 24 June 2013 18:10, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I will be more than happy to resign as CFM and turn it over to someone
else if people have a problem with it.
Please don't do that (until at least the end of the CF ;-) )
It's a difficult job and I'm happy you're doing it, though I
Hrm, I'm on the slackers list, and I didn't see an email directed to
me from JB in the last week about the CF.
Really? Hmmm. I'm going to send you a test email privately, please
verify whether or not you get it.
Anyway, I am hoping to take at least one patch this CF, though the
recent
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I don't like idea of sending gifts. I do like the idea of public thanks. We
should put full recognition in the release notes for someone who reviews a
patch. If they didn't review the patch, the person that wrote the
The problem with that is that that HUGELY depends on the patch and the
review. There are patches where reviewers do a good percentage of the
work and others where they mostly tell that compiles runs.
This project is enormously stingy with giving credit to people. It's
not like it costs us
On 06/24/2013 10:48 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
Reviewer recognition should be on the same level as the submitter.
The problem with that is that that HUGELY depends on the patch and the
review. There are patches where reviewers do a good percentage of the
work and others where they mostly tell
On 2013-06-24 14:48:32 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I don't like idea of sending gifts. I do like the idea of public thanks. We
should put full recognition in the release notes for someone who reviews a
patch. If
Because spending a year working on a feature isn't the same as spending
an hour or day on it. And the proposal was to generally list them at the
same level.
At least the 9.3 release notes seem to list people that reviewed
extensively prominently on the patches...
My proposal was to have a
On 2013-06-24 10:50:42 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
The problem with that is that that HUGELY depends on the patch and the
review. There are patches where reviewers do a good percentage of the
work and others where they mostly tell that compiles runs.
This project is enormously stingy
On 06/24/2013 10:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-06-24 10:50:42 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
The problem with that is that that HUGELY depends on the patch and the
review. There are patches where reviewers do a good percentage of the
work and others where they mostly tell that compiles
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Leave your ego at the door. Josh is doing what could be considered one of
the most thankless (public) jobs in this project. How about we support him
in getting these patches taken care of instead of whining about the
I'm just wondering about newbies...
I've created my first patch, so I'm one of them, I think.
I've reviewed some patches, but only some easier ones, like pure regression
tests. Unfortunately my knowledge is not enough to review patches making
very deep internal changes, or some efficiency
Szymon,
I've reviewed some patches, but only some easier ones, like pure regression
tests.
Actually, you were one of the people I was thinking of when I said
mostly the new submitters have been exemplary in claiming some review
work. You're helping a lot.
Unfortunately my knowledge is not
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:40:48AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
More, on the slacker list are 6-8 people who I happen to know are paid
by their employers to work on PostgreSQL. Those are the folks I'm
particularly targeting with the Slacker list; I want to make it
transparently clear to those
On 25/06/13 03:54, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
It is mentioned. Of course now I can't find it but it is there.
However, I believe you are taking the wrong perspective on this. This is
not a shame wall. It is a transparent reminder of the policy and those
who have not assisted in reviewing a patch
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:10:11AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 06/24/2013 10:02 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
patch. The vast majority chose not to respond to my email to them at
all. When private email fails, the next step is public email.
The
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:10:11AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 06/24/2013 10:02 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
patch. The vast majority chose not to respond to my email to them at
Mark Kirkwood mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz writes:
One of the reasons for fewer reviewers than submitters, is that it is a
fundamentally more difficult job. I've submitted a few patches in a few
different areas over the years - however if I grab a patch on the queue
that is not in exactly
Folks,
For 9.2, we adopted it as policy that anyone submitting a patch to a
commitfest is expected to review at least one patch submitted by someone
else. And that failure to do so would affect the attention your patches
received in the future. For that reason, I'm publishing the list below
of
83 matches
Mail list logo
