On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
There are some place with the next commitfest deadlines (2014/06 and
2014/09) ?
Regards,
Those deadlines won't be finalized until after PGCon, but it seems
likely to me that we'll do about what we
Hi all,
There are some place with the next commitfest deadlines (2014/06 and
2014/09) ?
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com
Perfil Linkedin:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Indeed. I once suggested only half jokingly that we should have a Coder of
the month award.
I suggest that it be named The Tom Lane award, and disqualify Tom from
winning (sorry Tom). ;-)
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
and...@dunslane.net (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
I am personally quite tired of reviewing patches for people who don't
in turn review mine (or someone's). It makes me feel like not
working on this project. If we can solve that problem without
implementing a policy of this
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't totally evilly
draconian.
There's a difference between:
You haven't reviewed any patches - we'll ignore you forever!
and
Since you haven't reviewed any patches, we are compelled
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't totally evilly
draconian.
There's a difference between:
You haven't reviewed any patches - we'll ignore
j...@commandprompt.com (Joshua D. Drake) writes:
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't totally evilly
draconian.
There's a difference between:
You haven't reviewed any patches - we'll ignore you forever!
and
Since
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 12:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't totally evilly
draconian.
There's a difference
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
True. But not enough reviewers to review all the patches we get is
also a barrier to contribution.
No. It is a barrier of contribution not to contribution.
I am not sure exactly what that means, but I agree that
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:41:02PM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
j...@commandprompt.com (Joshua D. Drake) writes:
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't totally evilly
draconian.
There's a difference between:
You
2009/11/17 David Fetter da...@fetter.org:
In the PostgreSQL Weekly News, I track patches, and apparently at
least one person reads that section. Would it be helpful to track
reviews somehow during commitfests with the reviewers' names
prominently attached?
Yes. See also my suggestion [1]
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
One of the rewards for getting a patch into the tree is having your
name immortalised in the commit log. There's no such compensation for
reviewing patches.
Well, that could be fixed: instead of
blah blah blah
Joe Coder
we could write
Brendan Jurd wrote:
One of the rewards for getting a patch into the tree is having your
name immortalised in the commit log. There's no such compensation for
reviewing patches.
I think creating incentives to review is going to be more potent and
more enjoyable for everyone involved than
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 19:15 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Brendan Jurd wrote:
One of the rewards for getting a patch into the tree is having your
name immortalised in the commit log. There's no such compensation for
reviewing patches.
I think creating incentives to review is going to
On Nov 16, 2009, at 8:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 19:15 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Brendan Jurd wrote:
One of the rewards for getting a patch into the tree is having your
name immortalised in the commit log. There's no such compensation
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
One of the rewards for getting a patch into the tree is having your
name immortalised in the commit log. There's no such compensation for
reviewing patches.
Well, that could be fixed:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am probably more able than most to adjust my schedule to devote time
to committing things.
Yes, time is what has restricted what I can do. I'll try to do a bit
more for this coming commitfest, but I'm rather sad that I haven't made
a more substantial
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Personally, I would not propose to impose this rule of first-time
contributors, or even second-time contributors. But by about patch #3
I think everyone should be pitching in.
I hate to ask, but how would we enforce
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 08:33 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Personally, I would not propose to impose this rule of first-time
contributors, or even second-time contributors. But by about patch #3
I think everyone should be
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
What about people who contribute hours and hours of their time in
other ways? Are they required to contribute even more of their time to
review as well, just to help their own occasional code contributions
get through
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 10:26 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
What about people who contribute hours and hours of their time in
other ways? Are they required to contribute even more of their time to
review as well, just to help
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Requiring people to write docs or any other patch submission rules has
never been counterproductive. People could easily say, English is not
my first language, therefore I skip all comments and docs. But they
don't,
Robert Haas wrote:
I am personally quite tired of
reviewing patches for people who don't in turn review mine (or
someone's). It makes me feel like not working on this project. If we
can solve that problem without implementing a policy of this type,
that is good. I would much prefer to run
Simon Riggs wrote:
Requiring people to write docs or any other patch submission rules has
never been counterproductive. People could easily say, English is not
my first language, therefore I skip all comments and docs. But they
don't, because we require that, as a hard rule. Nobody has ever
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 13:34 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Requiring people to write docs or any other patch submission rules has
never been counterproductive. People could easily say, English is not
my first language,
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 08:46 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Organizing contributors on a project like this is like herding cats.
Threats and penalties are unlikely to be effective.
People have spoken against this because of the enforcement issue. If we
talk about this like we were suggesting
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 08:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We do ask people to write docs, but I
don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs.
Yes, that is a good example. It's a rule, plain and simple. Nobody
gets their spleen removed for breaking it,
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:31 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, right now we ask for docs, but if they are not supplied, I think
we just write them ourselves. Is a different enforcement method being
suggested here?
And we never bump late patches, nor reject them if sent in missing
format etc.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
The docs case is a good example. We do ask people to write docs, but I
don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs. I am
not against any of the ideas suggested in this thread --- I am just
pointing out
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 08:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We do ask people to write docs, but I
don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs.
Yes, that is a good example. It's a rule, plain and simple. Nobody
gets their spleen removed for breaking it, yet it is still somehow
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
The docs case is a good example. We do ask people to write docs, but I
don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs. I am
not against any of the ideas suggested in this thread ---
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
I am personally quite tired of
reviewing patches for people who don't in turn review mine (or
someone's). It makes me feel like not working on this project. If we
can solve that problem without
* Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net [091113 09:52]:
In that case people are working on their own patches. That's quite
different from asking/requiring them to work on somebody else's.
But is it?
Just s/patches/itches/
i.e. The patched code implenting feature $X is their main itch... They
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Requiring people to write docs or any other patch submission rules has
never been counterproductive. People could easily say, English is not
my first
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
All the CF manager needs to do is ensure that every patch submitted
chalks up one review. If you think about it, we wouldn't actually need
any rr reviewers at all then, because if we have 20 patches we would
have 20 reviews due. So the whole scheme is
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
All the CF manager needs to do is ensure that every patch submitted
chalks up one review. If you think about it, we wouldn't actually need
any rr reviewers at all then, because if we
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
All the CF manager needs to do is ensure that every patch submitted
chalks up one review. If you think about it, we wouldn't actually need
any rr reviewers at all
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:31 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, right now we ask for docs, but if they are not supplied, I think
we just write them ourselves. Is a different enforcement method being
suggested here?
And we never bump late patches, nor reject them if
2009/11/14 Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com:
I think we (the commitfest manager?) should simply send polite message
to any regulars who submits patches but hasn't volunteered for review.
Along the lines of:
I certainly endorse Heikki's suggestion, but I wonder if we can
Robert Haas wrote:
Please don't sabotage my effort to ensure
an adequate supply of reviewers unless you have a competing proposal.
I don't think you can reasonably demand this. If I don't think your
suggestion is going to improve matters I have a right to say so.
cheers
andrew
--
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I agree with Tom though that we don't really need a huge pool of people
who chip in with one hour per month. We need people who know the
codebase pretty well, and who can spend a fair amount of time
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm thinking of something like a Reviewer Hall of Fame, or Honour
Roll. During and after a commitfest, it shows how many reviews have
been completed by each person [1].
This could be included in the Weekly News at the
Simon Riggs wrote:
All the CF manager needs to do is ensure that every patch submitted
chalks up one review. If you think about it, we wouldn't actually need
any rr reviewers at all then, because if we have 20 patches we would
have 20 reviews due. So the whole scheme is self-balancing
In fact,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
Please don't sabotage my effort to ensure
an adequate supply of reviewers unless you have a competing proposal.
I don't think you can reasonably demand this. If I don't think your
suggestion is
On Fri, November 13, 2009 1:04 pm, Robert Haas wrote:
the mere fact that we are even *discussing*
whether it should be mandatory has led to a bumper crop of reviewers,
Non sequitur.
I think it is more likely that the bumper crop of reviewers is due
to the lengthy discussion about the lack of
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 10:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Keep in mind that
this is a problem that *does not apply to you*. You are a committer.
If no one reviews your patch, you will eventually go ahead and commit
it anyway. If no one reviews my patch, it doesn't go in.
That is the problem.
I
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 10:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
All the CF manager needs to do is ensure that every patch submitted
chalks up one review. If you think about it, we wouldn't actually need
any rr reviewers at all then, because if we have 20 patches
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 10:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
To put this another way, if everyone who submitted a patch reviewed a
patch, we could finish up each CommitFest in 2-3 weeks instead of a
whole month
Agreed. That's the idea, lets go with it to see if it works.
--
Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 12:56 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
For now, simply telling submitters that the
review of their own patches might be influenced by whether they do a
good job reviewing someone else's has improved things considerably
over past CommitFests, and it's hard to imagine how
On Friday 13 November 2009 18:56:01 Greg Smith wrote:
Take a look at
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view?id=4 right
now. I've been suggesting to people that they assign themselves to the
patches they like, and it's nearing completely populated two days before
the
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 23:10 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
I have to admit that at least for me personally its way much easer to get
started on a patch one finds interesting than when not
I find it much easier to get interested in a patch after I get started
reviewing it ;)
Seriously, that's
Robert Haas wrote:
Anyhow, as Bruce pointed out on another message, in some sense we are
getting sidetracked. Good reviewers opting out of the system *is* a
problem, but lack of a sufficient number of sufficiently involved
committers is a bigger one.
I want to thank everyone for the fine
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Having read the discussion and heard people's opinions, I am now
thinking that I need to get more involved in committing patches.
Woot.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 20:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
chunk of the September CommitFest, I am feeling a bit burned out.
You did a grand job and everybody
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 20:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
chunk of the September
Hi,
On Thursday 12 November 2009 12:46:46 Robert Haas wrote:
Perhaps for next release we should consider spacing the CommitFests
out a little more.
That may lead to quite a bit frustration on the contributor side though. It
can be very frustrating to have no input for a even longer
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Thursday 12 November 2009 12:46:46 Robert Haas wrote:
Perhaps for next release we should consider spacing the CommitFests
out a little more.
That may lead to quite a bit frustration on the contributor side though. It
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 06:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Having said that,
I'm not capable of single-handedly effecting an on-time release
You're bloody good and the task needs to fit our capability anyway.
So, yes, you are.
We need larger, more robust pools of
committers, reviewers,
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Not a new idea, but I think we should require all patch submitters to do
one review per submission. There needs to be a balance between time
spent on review and time spent on dev. The only real way this happens in
any
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I'd be happy to get together at some pre-appointed hour this weekend
(Saturday / Sunday) to talk it over by phone / IRC. PDXPUG was already
planning to get together to review some patches this Sunday from 3-5pm
PST, so that
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Not a new idea, but I think we should require all patch submitters to do
one review per submission. There needs to be a balance between time
spent on review and time spent on dev. The only real way this happens in
any
Simon Riggs escreveu:
So, I
propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
done sufficient review to be allowed to develop again.
Is it really impolite for a first-contributor, no?
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
I like this idea. Perhaps also if a person is reviewing a patch for
the first time, we could make some effort to get a more experienced
person paired up with them.
When I was CFM last year, I assigned patches for review first if the
patch author was doing a review themselves. Patches whose
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Albert Cervera i Areny
alb...@nan-tic.com wrote:
A Dijous, 12 de novembre de 2009, Euler Taveira de Oliveira va escriure:
Simon Riggs escreveu:
So, I
propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
done sufficient review to be allowed
A Dijous, 12 de novembre de 2009, Euler Taveira de Oliveira va escriure:
Simon Riggs escreveu:
So, I
propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
done sufficient review to be allowed to develop again.
Is it really impolite for a first-contributor, no?
I don't
2009/11/13 Euler Taveira de Oliveira eu...@timbira.com:
Simon Riggs escreveu:
So, I
propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
done sufficient review to be allowed to develop again.
Is it really impolite for a first-contributor, no?
I support Simon's proposal,
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 15:52 -0200, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Simon Riggs escreveu:
So, I
propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
done sufficient review to be allowed to develop again.
Is it really impolite for a first-contributor, no?
I believe the
Robert Haas escribió:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Albert Cervera i Areny
alb...@nan-tic.com wrote:
A Dijous, 12 de novembre de 2009, Euler Taveira de Oliveira va escriure:
Simon Riggs escreveu:
So, I
propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
done
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 11:36 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I agree. I would quibble only with the details. I think we should
require patch authors to act as a reviewer for any CommitFest for
which they have submitted patches. We don't need every patch author
to review as many patches as they
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 11:36 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I agree. I would quibble only with the details. I think we should
require patch authors to act as a reviewer for any CommitFest for
which they have submitted patches.
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 14:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Not all contributors are fluent English readers and writers.
I certainly do not discourage those people from reviewing, but I can
understand how it might be more frustrating and less productive for
them. An important part of review is
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 14:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Not all contributors are fluent English readers and writers.
I certainly do not discourage those people from reviewing, but I can
understand how it might be more
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Albert Cervera i Areny
alb...@nan-tic.com wrote:
A Dijous, 12 de novembre de 2009, Euler Taveira de Oliveira va escriure:
Simon Riggs escreveu:
So, I
propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
done
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Albert Cervera i Areny
alb...@nan-tic.com wrote:
A Dijous, 12 de novembre de 2009, Euler Taveira de Oliveira va escriure:
Simon Riggs escreveu:
So, I
propose that
Robert Haas wrote:
Personally, I would not propose to impose this rule of first-time
contributors, or even second-time contributors. ?But by about patch #3
I think everyone should be pitching in.
I hate to ask, but how would we enforce this? ?Do we no longer apply
patches for 3rd-time
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
Personally, I would not propose to impose this rule of first-time
contributors, or even second-time contributors. ?But by about patch #3
I think everyone should be pitching in.
I hate to ask, but
Robert Haas wrote:
We just wouldn't assign round-robin reviewers to such patches. ?If
someone wants to volunteer, more power to them, but we would encourage
people to focus their efforts on the patches of people who were
themselves reviewing. ?It's important to keep in mind that valid is
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
We just wouldn't assign round-robin reviewers to such patches. ?If
someone wants to volunteer, more power to them, but we would encourage
people to focus their efforts on the patches of people who
Robert Haas wrote:
That wasn't my intention. I really was assuming that we would just
let those patches drop on the floor, and that they would not be picked
up either by reviewers or committers.
Surely it should depend on the nature of the patch.
For an extreme strawman, segfault fixes
Hi!
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
chunk of the September CommitFest, I
Selena Deckelmann wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
chunk of the
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The next CommitFest is scheduled to start in a week. So far, it
doesn't look too bad, though a lot could change between now and then.
I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
next
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
why we need a full time manager at all?
why not simply use -rrreviewers to track the status of a patch? of
course, we hope the author or reviewer to change the status as
appropiate but we have seen many people
Selena,
I'd be happy to get together at some pre-appointed hour this weekend
(Saturday / Sunday) to talk it over by phone / IRC. PDXPUG was already
planning to get together to review some patches this Sunday from 3-5pm
PST, so that is a convenient time for me.
Aren't you running OpenSQL this
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
why we need a full time manager at all?
why not simply use -rrreviewers to track the status of a patch? of
course, we hope the author
Selena Deckelmann wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com wrote:
I was just poking around on the Wiki, and it looks like the role of the
CommitFest manager isn't very well documented yet.
It's pretty straightforward. Robert has actually done a great
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
why we need a full time manager at all?
why not
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Selena Deckelmann wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com wrote:
I was just poking around on the Wiki, and it looks like the role of the
CommitFest manager isn't very well documented
Robert Haas escreveu:
I think an automatic system would probably not be too valuable
I have the same impression.
It's easy to generate systems that spew out a lot of email, but the
system doesn't really have any understanding of what is really going
on. When I send out emails to nag
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Selena Deckelmann wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com wrote:
I was just poking around on the Wiki, and it
Robert Haas wrote:
Here's an attempt.
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_a_CommitFest
Perfect, that's the sort of thing I was looking for the other day but
couldn't find anywhere. I just made a pass through better wiki-fying
that and linking it to the related pages in this area.
Two
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
chunk of the September CommitFest, I am feeling a bit burned out.
I was just poking around on the Wiki, and it looks
*snip*
One pretty major fly in the ointment is that neither Hot Standby nor
Streaming Replication has been committed or shows much sign of being
about to be committed. I think this is bad. These are big features
that figure to have some bugs and break some things. If they're not
committed in
I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
chunk of the September CommitFest, I am feeling a bit burned out.
Dave, Selena and I will all be in Japan during the first week of the CF.
I can help
The next CommitFest is scheduled to start in a week. So far, it
doesn't look too bad, though a lot could change between now and then.
I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
chunk of the September
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
chunk of the September CommitFest, I am feeling a bit burned out.
You did yeoman work on both --- thanks for that!
96 matches
Mail list logo
