Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest #3 and upcoming schedule
On 2012-12-10 09:22:25 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: On Sunday, December 09, 2012 9:27 PM Simon Riggs On 16 November 2012 07:20, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Let's bring balance to the situation through our own actions. Please review one patch now for every one you submitted. In CF-3, I am Author of 5 and Reviewer of 5 3 of my patches as Author have been moved from CF-2 You're not alone in that ;) 4 of the patches where I am reviewer have been moved from CF-2 One of my Patch : Patch for option in pg_resetxlog for restore from WAL files is dependent on another patch XLogReader, so I am expecting to get it done only after XLogReader. Btw, I posted the current version of this at: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20121204175212.GB12055%40awork2.anarazel.de Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest #3 and upcoming schedule
On 16 November 2012 07:20, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Project guidelines now ask each patch submitter to review patches of the same number and approximate complexity as they submit. If you've submitted some items to the CommitFest, please look at the open list and try to find something you can review. The deadline for 9.3 is looming and many patches have not yet been reviewed. I'm sending a public reminder to all patch authors that they should review other people's patches if they expect their own to be reviewed. Simply put, if you don't help each other by reviewing other patches then the inevitable result will be your patch will not be neither reviewed nor committed. PostgreSQL has always maintained high standards and the QA process for all code is for it to be reviewed/discussed prior to commit, which is known as peer review. The PostgreSQL project is fortunate to have so many keen developers, though for some time now there has been an imbalance between the amount of code to review and the amount of time available to do those reviews. I suggested that we encourage peer review by developers, on the basis of one patch, one review as a way of solving the problem. Since many/most people are submitting patches as part of their professional job, this message needs to be passed on to your bosses so they are able to allocate sufficient time for you to do both development *and* peer review. Future planning needs to take into account the time/cost of both of those tasks. Let's bring balance to the situation through our own actions. Please review one patch now for every one you submitted. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest #3 and upcoming schedule
On 9.12.2012 16:56, Simon Riggs wrote: On 16 November 2012 07:20, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Project guidelines now ask each patch submitter to review patches of the same number and approximate complexity as they submit. If you've submitted some items to the CommitFest, please look at the open list and try to find something you can review. The deadline for 9.3 is looming and many patches have not yet been reviewed. I'm sending a public reminder to all patch authors that they should review other people's patches if they expect their own to be reviewed. Simply put, if you don't help each other by reviewing other patches then the inevitable result will be your patch will not be neither reviewed nor committed. IMHO many of the patches that are currently marked as needs review and have no reviewers, were actually reviewed or are being discussed thoroughly on the list, but this information was not propagated to the CF page. Not sure how to fix this except for updating patches that I've reviewed and urging the others to do the same. Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest #3 and upcoming schedule
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote: IMHO many of the patches that are currently marked as needs review and have no reviewers, were actually reviewed or are being discussed thoroughly on the list, but this information was not propagated to the CF page. Should active discussion on the hackers list prevent someone from doing a review? I know I am reluctant to review a patch when it seems it is still being actively redesigned/debated by others. Maybe a new status of needs design consensus would be useful. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest #3 and upcoming schedule
On 9.12.2012 22:41, Jeff Janes wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote: IMHO many of the patches that are currently marked as needs review and have no reviewers, were actually reviewed or are being discussed thoroughly on the list, but this information was not propagated to the CF page. Should active discussion on the hackers list prevent someone from doing a review? I know I am reluctant to review a patch when it seems it is still being actively redesigned/debated by others. Maybe a new status of needs design consensus would be useful. IMHO introducing new statuses won't improve the state. Moreover reaching a design consensus is a natural part of the review process. I see those discussions as a part of the review process, so it's not that an active discussion means 'no review' (although the CF page states needs review or no reviewer for such patches). There's nothing wrong with doing yet another review for a patch, but in most cases I tend to agree with the points already raised in the discussion so it's not really productive. Thus I share the same reluctance to do more reviews for those actively discussed patches. My point is that some of the idle patches are actually quite active in the background, no one just updated the CF page. And I see many such patches moved forward over the last few days. Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest #3 and upcoming schedule
On Sunday, December 09, 2012 9:27 PM Simon Riggs On 16 November 2012 07:20, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Let's bring balance to the situation through our own actions. Please review one patch now for every one you submitted. In CF-3, I am Author of 5 and Reviewer of 5 3 of my patches as Author have been moved from CF-2 4 of the patches where I am reviewer have been moved from CF-2 One of my Patch : Patch for option in pg_resetxlog for restore from WAL files is dependent on another patch XLogReader, so I am expecting to get it done only after XLogReader. I wanted to know if I should attach myself as reviewer to more patches as per initial policy of CF? In anycase as soon as I get time I shall review more patches. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
