On 8 February 2013 10:23, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
to solve two problems:
1. maximize the efficiency of existing reviewer time
2. make tooling not be an obstacle to getting new reviewers
I think you are missing a fundamental part in this - which is 0.
don't negatively
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Folks,
First, thanks for the serious discussion of this.
There are obvious tooling gaps (aren't there always?), but I don't
really see the model as broken, and I don't think I've been around
pgsql-hackers exclusively or
On 2/6/13 4:07 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
I think one of them has, now: Gerrit. http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/
I find Gerrit pretty useful, and I would support trying it out.
I suggest, build it and they will come, or not. Let people push their
patches into Gerrit and attach the reviews to the
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
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:20 PM, 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
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
I suggest, build it and they will come, or not. Let people push their
patches into Gerrit and attach the reviews to the commit fest items. If
reviewers then want to use that, it's their choice. We'll see how it goes.
I might be misunderstanding what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
The problem with doing it in-house is that the folks who can work on it
and maintain it will be taking time away from developing PostgreSQL.
Not sure that using Gerrit solves this. Someone will need to install it,
maintain it, document, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
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,
On 02/08/2013 07:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
I suggest, build it and they will come, or not. Let people push their
patches into Gerrit and attach the reviews to the commit fest items. If
reviewers then want to use that, it's their choice. We'll see how it
I don't see the model as broken either. Just the tooling, which is why
I'm looking at tooling. As in, I'm looking for better tooling in order
Yet you are suggesting tooling that requires a change in the model?
Well, my fantasy is a version of Gerrit which accepts email from
-hackers and
On 2/8/13 10:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
I suggest, build it and they will come, or not. Let people push their
patches into Gerrit and attach the reviews to the commit fest items. If
reviewers then want to use that, it's their choice. We'll see how it
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On 2/8/13 10:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
... I don't object to people using their
tools-of-choice to perform reviewing, but we need some way of making
sure that the reviews get archived.
Gerrit sends me an email every times something happens, so I think
I thought this might be of interest...
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2013/02/07/the-document-foundation-announces-libreoffice-4-0/
[...]
Improved code contribution thanks to Gerrit: a web based code review
system, facilitating the task for projects using Git version control
system
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
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:20 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
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
8. Send it to pgsql-hackers
8.a. this requires you to be subscribed to pgsql-hackers.
No, it does not. It will get caught in the moderation queue
Jeff Janes escribió:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
8. Send it to pgsql-hackers
8.a. this requires you to be subscribed to pgsql-hackers.
No, it does not. It will get
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?
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
This is a few too many steps, and certainly appears completely broken to
any newcomer.
I agree it's way too many step. Several of those can certainly
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On 02/06/2013 01:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
... if it's going to try to coerce us out of our email-centric habits,
then I for one am very much
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 February 2013 08:07, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
The existing Gerrit community would be keen to have the PostgreSQL
project as a major user, though, and would theoretically help with
modification needs.
Folks,
First, thanks for the serious discussion of this.
There are obvious tooling gaps (aren't there always?), but I don't
really see the model as broken, and I don't think I've been around
pgsql-hackers exclusively or extensively enough to have developed
Stockholm syndrome.
I don't see
Hackers,
As an occasional CommitFest manager, I'm keenly aware of the makeshift
nature of the CommitFest app. If we want to go on using it -- and if we
want to attract additional reviewers -- we need to improve it
substantially. What Robert built for us was supposed to be a second
draft, not a
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Hackers,
As an occasional CommitFest manager, I'm keenly aware of the makeshift
nature of the CommitFest app. If we want to go on using it -- and if we
want to attract additional reviewers -- we need to improve it
This is probably not something we should discuss right now - it's
better discussed when we're not right inthe middle of a commitfest,
no?
Well, *if* we were to change tooling, the time to do it would be during
beta. Hence, bringing it up now.
We have no ad-hoc PHP, but I'm assume you're
On 06/02/2013 22:25, Josh Berkus wrote:
Mind you, when I explained our current CF review workflow for the SF
ReviewFest last year, the attendees thought I was insane. It's kept me
from doing more reviewfests. Our current workflow and tooling is
definitely a serious obstacle to gettng more
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
As an occasional CommitFest manager, I'm keenly aware of the makeshift
nature of the CommitFest app. If we want to go on using it -- and if we
want to attract additional reviewers
On 02/06/2013 01:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
... if it's going to try to coerce us out of our email-centric habits,
then I for one am very much against it. To me, the problems with the
existing CF app are precisely that it's not well enough integrated with
the email discussions. The way to fix
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:17:09PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I just took a quick look at their system, and when they start talking
about requirements in the 100's of Gb of RAM, 24 core machines and
SSD, I get scared :) But that's to scale it - doesn't mention when
you need to do anything
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On 02/06/2013 01:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
... if it's going to try to coerce us out of our email-centric habits,
then I for one am very much against it. To me, the problems with the
existing CF app are precisely
On 7 February 2013 08:07, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
The existing Gerrit community would be keen to have the PostgreSQL
project as a major user, though, and would theoretically help with
modification needs. Current major users are OpenStack, Mediawiki,
LibreOffice and QT.
Do we
On 2013-02-06 13:25:31 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Mind you, when I explained our current CF review workflow for the SF
ReviewFest last year, the attendees thought I was insane. It's kept me
from doing more reviewfests. Our current workflow and tooling is
definitely a serious obstacle to gettng
2013/2/7 Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 2013-02-06 13:25:31 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Mind you, when I explained our current CF review workflow for the SF
ReviewFest last year, the attendees thought I was insane. It's kept me
from doing more reviewfests. Our current workflow and
33 matches
Mail list logo
