On 19/12/14 20:48, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-12-18 10:02:25 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think a lot of hackers forget exactly how tender their egos are. Now I say
this knowing that a lot of them will go, Oh give me a break but as someone
who employs hackers, deals with open source AND
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Mark Kirkwood
mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz wrote:
On 19/12/14 20:48, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-12-18 10:02:25 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think a lot of hackers forget exactly how tender their egos are. Now I
say
this knowing that a lot of them
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 02:00:18PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
Another thought I had was to suggest we consider *everyone* to be a
contributor and implement a way to tie together the mailing list
archives with the commit history and perhaps the commitfest app and make
it searchable and indexed
On 12/19/2014 12:28 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
To me that's a bit over the top stereotyping.
+1
Having been mentioned one or two times myself - it was an unexpected
wow - cool rather than a grumpy/fragile I must be noticed thing. I
think some folk have forgotten the underlying principle of
On 12/18/2014 05:36 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
I tend to agree that we want to avoid complicated rules. The corollary
to that is the concern Andrew raised about my earlier off-the-cuff
proposal- how do we avoid debasing the value of being recognized as a PG
contributor?
I find that less of a
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 12/18/2014 05:36 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
I do agree that we need to give credit in some form, though. I'm just
saying can we please not put the responsibility on committers.
Ugh, yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to have to work out some complex
set
On 12/19/14, 6:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Could we establish an expectation that whoever sets a CF entry to ready
for committer is responsible for reviewing the authors/reviewers lists
and making sure that those fairly represent who should get credit? That
would divide the labor a bit, and there
On 2014-12-19 22:17:54 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
git does allow you to revise a commit message; it just makes
downstream pulls uglier if the commit was already pushed (see
https://help.github.com/articles/changing-a-commit-message/). It might
be possible to minimize or even eliminate that pain
On 20/12/14 11:22, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 12/19/2014 12:28 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
To me that's a bit over the top stereotyping.
+1
Having been mentioned one or two times myself - it was an unexpected
wow - cool rather than a grumpy/fragile I must be noticed thing. I
think some folk
On 16.12.2014 08:33, David Rowley wrote:
On 16 December 2014 at 18:18, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
mailto:j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way
(and I'm tentatively on your side onthat one) and take that to imply
that
On 17.12.2014 20:00, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jaime Casanova (ja...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been proposed that we do a general list of people at the bottom
of the release notes who helped review during that
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Another thought I had was to suggest we consider *everyone* to be a
contributor and implement a way to tie together the mailing list
archives with the commit history and perhaps the commitfest app and make
it searchable
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Another thought I had was to suggest we consider *everyone* to be a
contributor and implement a way to tie together the
On 12/18/2014 04:53 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
Having your name in a list of other names at the bottom of the release
notes page, without any indication of what you helped with, would work
better? Perhaps it would but I tend to doubt it.
Out of my personal experience in Germany: yes, it
On 12/18/2014 07:31 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
+1
It does feel good to be acknowledged for our work especially when
there is a policy to acknowledge this in our community.
I like this idea but who is going to code our new social network?
Frankly, this coin is going to become so debased
All,
It's sounding like folks would prefer keeing the master contributors
list up to date, to adding a bunch of names to the release notes.
So, then, I have a proposal for criteria for getting on the contributors
list via patch review:
- substantial, deep review of at least one patch (including
Josh Berkus wrote:
So, then, I have a proposal for criteria for getting on the contributors
list via patch review:
- substantial, deep review of at least one patch (including detailed
code review and possible corrections)
- functionality reviews of at least 3 patches, including full
On 12/18/2014 10:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
The problem with complicated rules (which these, I think, already are)
is how to keep track of people that helps to which level. I make a
point of crediting reviewers and code contributors in my commit
messages, but can you tell which ones of the
On 19/12/14 07:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 12/18/2014 04:53 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
Having your name in a list of other names at the bottom of the release
notes page, without any indication of what you helped with, would work
better? Perhaps it would but I tend to doubt it.
Out of
On 12/18/2014 11:03 AM, Gavin Flower wrote:
Hey Joshua, what does a 'Normal person look like??? :-)
Hahhhahahah, you have to get out of your basement to see them. Usually,
they are at the latest and newest coffee hub, talking about hating
hipsters while wearing skinny jeans and a new
On 12/18/14, 12:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
It does feel good to be acknowledged for our work especially when
there is a policy to acknowledge this in our community.
I like this idea but who is going to code our new social network?
+1. I do like the idea; but I don't like it enough to do
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net
mailto:sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
contributors.postgresql.org/sfrost
http://contributors.postgresql.org/sfrost
- Recent commits
- Recent commit
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
So, then, I have a proposal for criteria for getting on the contributors
list via patch review:
- substantial, deep review of at least one patch (including detailed
code review and possible corrections)
-
* Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote:
On 12/18/14, 12:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
It does feel good to be acknowledged for our work especially when
there is a policy to acknowledge this in our community.
I like this idea but who is going to code our new social network?
+1. I
On 2014-12-18 10:02:25 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I think a lot of hackers forget exactly how tender their egos are. Now I say
this knowing that a lot of them will go, Oh give me a break but as someone
who employs hackers, deals with open source AND normal people :P every
single day, I can
* Jaime Casanova (ja...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been proposed that we do a general list of people at the bottom
of the release notes who helped review during that cycle. That would
be less intrusive and
On 15/12/14 19:08, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland
mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk wrote:
However if it were posted as part of patchset with a subject of [PATCH]
gram.y: add EXCLUDED pseudo-alias to bison grammar then this may pique
my interest enough to
On 15/12/14 19:24, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 12/15/2014 02:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland
mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk wrote:
However if it were posted as part of patchset with a subject of [PATCH]
gram.y: add EXCLUDED pseudo-alias to bison
On 12/16/2014 05:53 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
In practice, people don't tend to post updates to individual patches in
that way.
Exactly. Much like if you push a new revision of a working branch, you
repost all the changesets - or should.
--
Craig Ringer
On 15/12/14 19:27, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland
mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk wrote:
What I find frustrating is that I've come back from a workflow where
I've been reviewing/testing patches within months of joining a project
because the barrier for
On 15 December 2014 at 19:52, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate
in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best they can
based on what they did know. That was a
On 16/12/14 04:57, Noah Misch wrote:
But that doesn't mean we should be turning anyone away. We should not.
+1. Some of the best reviews I've seen are ones where the reviewer expressed
doubts about the review's quality, so don't let such doubts keep you from
participating. Every defect
On 12/16/14 11:26 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
On 15/12/14 19:27, Robert Haas wrote:
So, there are certainly some large patches that do that, and they
typically require a very senior reviewer. But there are lots of small
patches too, touching little enough that you can learn enough to give
them
On 16/12/14 07:33, David Rowley wrote:
On 16 December 2014 at 18:18, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
mailto:j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way
(and I'm tentatively on your side onthat one) and take that to imply
On 16/12/14 10:49, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 12/16/14 11:26 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
On 15/12/14 19:27, Robert Haas wrote:
So, there are certainly some large patches that do that, and they
typically require a very senior reviewer. But there are lots of small
patches too, touching little
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland
mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk wrote:
For the spare time that I have for review, one of these projects
requires me to download attachment(s), apply them to a git tree
(hopefully it still applies), run a complete make check regression
series, try
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:09:34AM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
On 16/12/14 07:33, David Rowley wrote:
On 16 December 2014 at 18:18, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
mailto:j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your
way
On 16/12/14 13:37, Claudio Freire wrote:
For the second project, I can skim through my inbox daily picking up
specific areas I work on/are interested in, hit reply to add a couple of
lines of inline comments to the patch and send feedback to the
author/list in just a few minutes.
Notice
On 16/12/14 13:44, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:09:34AM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
On 16/12/14 07:33, David Rowley wrote:
On 16 December 2014 at 18:18, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
mailto:j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland
mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk wrote:
On 16/12/14 13:37, Claudio Freire wrote:
For the second project, I can skim through my inbox daily picking up
specific areas I work on/are interested in, hit reply to add a couple of
lines of inline
On 16/12/14 15:42, Claudio Freire wrote:
Also
with a submission from git, you can near 100% guarantee that the author
has actually built and run the code before submission.
I don't see how. Forks don't have travis ci unless you add it, or am I
mistaken?
Well as I mentioned in my last
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:33 AM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd just like to add something which might be flying below the radar of more
senior people. There are people out there (ike me) working on PostgreSQL
more for the challenge and perhaps the love of the product, who make
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 12/15/2014 07:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in
the release notes.
Man. You're equating stuff that's not
On 12/16/2014 4:32 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 15 December 2014 at 19:52, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate
in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best they can
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland
mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk wrote:
Well as I mentioned in my last email, practically all developers will
rebase and run make check on their patched tree before submitting to
the list.
Even when this is true, and with people new to the
On 12/16/2014 08:48 AM, Mike Blackwell wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland
mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk mailto:mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.ukwrote:
Well as I mentioned in my last email, practically all developers will
rebase and run make check on their patched
* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
It's not like development on a patch series is difficult. You commit
small fixes and changes, then you 'git rebase -i' and reorder them to
apply to the appropriate changesets. Or you can do a 'rebase -i' and in
'e'dit mode make amendments to
David,
* David Rowley (dgrowle...@gmail.com) wrote:
I'd just like to add something which might be flying below the radar of
more senior people. There are people out there (ike me) working on
PostgreSQL more for the challenge and perhaps the love of the product, who
make absolutely zero
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
David,
* David Rowley (dgrowle...@gmail.com) wrote:
I'd just like to add something which might be flying below the radar of
more senior people. There are people out there (ike me) working on
PostgreSQL more for
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Including all of the other names of people who made important
contributions, many of which consisted of reviewing, would make that
release note item - and many others - really, really long, so I'm not
in favor of that. Crediting reviewers is
On 12/16/2014 01:38 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Including all of the other names of people who made important
contributions, many of which consisted of reviewing, would make that
release note item - and many others - really, really long, so I'm not
in
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
On 12/16/2014 01:38 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
It has been proposed that we do a general list of people at the bottom
of the release notes who helped review during that cycle. That would
be less
This whole conversation reminds me of an interview I just read:
https://opensource.com/business/14/12/interview-jono-bacon-xprize-director-community
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
So, when I was first getting started with PG however many years ago, I
was ecstatic to see my name show up in a commit message. Hugely
increasing our release notes to include a bunch of names all shoved
together without any indication of what was done
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It has been proposed that we do a general list of people at the bottom
of the release notes who helped review during that cycle. That would
be less intrusive and possibly a good idea, but would we credit the
people
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
I should add here that the QEMU folk do tend to go to great lengths to
preserve bisectability; often intermediate compatibility APIs are
introduced early in the patchset and then removed at the very end when
the final feature is
On 2014-12-15 11:21:03 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
I should add here that the QEMU folk do tend to go to great lengths to
preserve bisectability; often intermediate compatibility APIs are
introduced early in the patchset and
On 15/12/14 16:28, Andres Freund wrote:
I don't believe this really is a question of the type of project. I
think it's more that especially the kernel has had to deal with similar
problems at a much larger scale. And the granular approach somewhat
works for them.
Correct. My argument was
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 12/12/2014 06:02 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Speaking as the originator of commitfests, they were *always* intended
to be a temporary measure, a step on the way to something else like
continuous integration.
I'd
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate
in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best they can
based on what they did know. That was a
On 12/15/2014 12:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate
in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best
On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in
the release notes.
Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way
(and I'm tentatively on your side onthat one) and take that to imply
that we don't
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 03:29:19PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 12/15/2014 03:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-12-15 11:52:35 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate
in the CF even if they
On 12/15/2014 07:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in
the release notes.
Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way
(and I'm tentatively on your side
On 2014-12-15 21:18:40 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 12/15/2014 07:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in
the release notes.
Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You
On 16 Dec 2014 7:43 am, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-12-15 21:18:40 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 12/15/2014 07:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in
On 16 December 2014 at 18:18, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way
(and I'm tentatively on your side onthat one) and take that to imply
that we don't want more reviewers.
During that thread a couple people said that
On 12/16/2014 03:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland
mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk wrote:
However if it were posted as part of patchset with a subject of [PATCH]
gram.y: add EXCLUDED pseudo-alias to bison grammar then this may pique
my interest enough
On 13/12/14 09:37, Craig Ringer wrote:
Speaking as the originator of commitfests, they were *always* intended
to be a temporary measure, a step on the way to something else like
continuous integration.
I'd really like to see the project revisit some of the underlying
assumptions that're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
#2 is solved by my previous comments about giving the CFM/C the
authority. -Core could do that, they are in charge of release.
I don't think authority is the solution. Or certainly not one that
would work with an open source project like
On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS.
I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster
patch when I saw that'd been done. If you look at my part in the work on
the row security patch, while I was
On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
If I could name just one thing that I think would improve things it
would be submission of patches to the list in git format-patch format.
Why? Because it enables two things: 1) by definition patches are
small-chunked into individually
On 14/12/14 15:51, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS.
I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster
patch when I saw that'd been done. If you look at my part in the work on
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS.
I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster
patch when I saw that'd been done. If you look at my part in the work on
On 14/12/14 15:57, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
If I could name just one thing that I think would improve things it
would be submission of patches to the list in git format-patch format.
Why? Because it enables two things: 1) by definition patches are
On 12/14/2014 12:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS.
I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster
patch when I saw that'd been
On 14/12/14 17:05, Tom Lane wrote:
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS.
I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster
patch when I saw that'd been done.
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
TBH, I'm not really on board with this line of argument. I don't find
broken-down patches to be particularly useful for review purposes. An
example I was just fooling with this week is the GROUPING SETS patch,
which was
On 14/12/14 17:30, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 12/14/2014 12:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS.
I specifically objected to that being flattened into a
On 14/12/14 18:24, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
TBH, I'm not really on board with this line of argument. I don't find
broken-down patches to be particularly useful for review purposes. An
example I was just fooling with this week
On 12/15/2014 02:46 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Interestingly enough, I tend to work in a very similar way to this. When
submitting patches upstream, I tend to rebase on a new branch and then
squash/rework as required.
Same here, and I find it works really well ... when I do it properly.
I
On 14/12/14 20:07, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 12/15/2014 02:46 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Interestingly enough, I tend to work in a very similar way to this. When
submitting patches upstream, I tend to rebase on a new branch and then
squash/rework as required.
Same here, and I find it works
On 12/12/2014 06:02 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Speaking as the originator of commitfests, they were *always* intended
to be a temporary measure, a step on the way to something else like
continuous integration.
I'd really like to see the project revisit some of the underlying
assumptions that're
On 12/12/2014 06:01 AM, David G Johnston wrote:
The patch list concept should be formalized, and should include a
targeted release concept.
IMO, the patch list concept should be discarded in favour of a
working tree list.
At this point, given the challenges the CF process faces, I can't say
On 12/12/14 20:43, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 12/12/2014 11:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Uh, really? Last I looked at the numbers from SPI treasurer reports,
they are not impressive enough to hire a full-time engineer, let alone a
senior one.
The Linux Foundation has managed to pay for Linus
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
How about *you* run the next one, Tom?
I think the limited amount of time I can put into a commitfest is better
spent on reviewing patches than on managing the process.
That's not really
Robert Haas wrote:
(I note that the proposal to have the CFM review everything is merely
one way of meeting the need to have senior people spend more time
reviewing. But I assure all of you that I spend as much time
reviewing as I can find time for. If someone wants to pay me the same
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
(I note that the proposal to have the CFM review everything is merely
one way of meeting the need to have senior people spend more time
reviewing. But I assure all of you that I spend as much
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:55:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
How about *you* run the next one, Tom?
I think the limited amount of time I can put into a commitfest is
better spent on reviewing patches than on managing the process.
With utmost respect, Tom,
On 2014-12-12 07:10:40 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:55:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
How about *you* run the next one, Tom?
I think the limited amount of time I can put into a commitfest is
better spent on reviewing patches
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
(I note that the proposal to have the CFM review everything is merely
one way of meeting the need to have senior people spend more time
reviewing. But
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:50:56AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Also, one part of the point of the review mechanism is that it's supposed
to provide an opportunity for less-senior reviewers to look at parts of
the code that they maybe don't know so well, and thereby help grow them
into senior
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:21:43PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-12-12 07:10:40 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:55:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
How about *you* run the next one, Tom?
I think the limited amount of
On 12/12/2014 06:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Yeah, that would be great, and even better if we could get 2 or 3
positions funded so that the success or failure isn't too much tied to
a single individual. But even getting 1 position funded in a
stable-enough fashion that someone would be willing
On 12.12.2014 19:07, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:50:56AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Also, one part of the point of the review mechanism is that it's
supposed to provide an opportunity for less-senior reviewers to
look at parts of the code that they maybe don't know so well, and
On 12 December 2014 at 15:10, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:55:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
How about *you* run the next one, Tom?
I think the limited amount of time I can put into a commitfest is
better spent on
On 12/11/2014 02:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
How about *you* run the next one, Tom?
I think the limited amount of time I can put into a commitfest is better
spent on reviewing patches than on managing the process.
Agreed but
That means committers/hackers
On 12/12/2014 06:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Yeah, that would be great, and even better if we could get 2 or 3
positions funded so that the success or failure isn't too much tied to
a single individual. But even getting 1 position funded in a
stable-enough fashion that someone would be willing
On 12/12/2014 10:59 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 12 December 2014 at 15:10, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:55:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
How about *you* run the next one, Tom?
I think the limited amount of time I can put
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 12/12/2014 06:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Yeah, that would be great, and even better if we could get 2 or 3
positions funded so that the success or failure isn't too much tied to
a single individual. But even getting 1 position funded in a
stable-enough fashion
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
