On 8 February 2013 10:23, Magnus Hagander 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 affect t
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Josh Berkus 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 be made
> more efficient now
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut 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.
>>
Jeff Janes escribió:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Josh Berkus 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 q
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Josh Berkus 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 and get
> slightly delayed if
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut 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 was p
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut 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 was
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 (althoug
Peter Eisentraut 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 this
> is
On 2/8/13 10:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut 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
>> 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
On 02/08/2013 07:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut 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.
>
-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, testin
-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, an
Peter Eisentraut 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 you're sugges
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut 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 was p
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 min
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 Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Josh Berkus 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 extensi
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
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On 7 February 2013 08:07, Josh Berkus 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,
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> 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 prob
2013/2/7 Andres Freund :
> 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
>> defini
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 gett
On 7 February 2013 08:07, Josh Berkus 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 actually have any
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joshua D. Drake 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 that it's not wel
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 anyth
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 tha
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Josh Berkus 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 -- we need to improve it
>> s
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 reviewe
> 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 Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Josh Berkus 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
> substantially. Wha
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 f
33 matches
Mail list logo
