Bruce,
There are three issues here:
1. What will best motive reviewers?
2. What is a reasonable effort to accomplish #1?
3. What is acceptable for release note readers?
You seem to be only focused on #1, and you don't want to address the
other items --- that's fine --- I will still
On 2013-08-07 10:04:08 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
There are three issues here:
1. What will best motive reviewers?
2. What is a reasonable effort to accomplish #1?
3. What is acceptable for release note readers?
You seem to be only focused on #1, and you don't want to
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:04:08AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
There are three issues here:
1. What will best motive reviewers?
2. What is a reasonable effort to accomplish #1?
3. What is acceptable for release note readers?
You seem to be only focused on #1, and you
On 08/07/2013 10:10 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-08-07 10:04:08 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
In the novels The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, there's a spaceship
which has been waiting 1000 years to take off because it's waiting for a
load of lemon-soaked paper napkins to be loaded. You
Bruce,
Actually, for me, motiving reviewers seems like the Lemon-Soaked Paper
Napkins, as it requires unbounded effort and its importance is not being
balanced with other priorities.
Let me be absolutely clear here: You do not think that the work
reviewers do is important at all, and you
Josh,
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
Actually, for me, motiving reviewers seems like the Lemon-Soaked Paper
Napkins, as it requires unbounded effort and its importance is not being
balanced with other priorities.
Let me be absolutely clear here: You do not think that the work
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:07:32PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
Actually, for me, motiving reviewers seems like the Lemon-Soaked Paper
Napkins, as it requires unbounded effort and its importance is not being
balanced with other priorities.
Let me be absolutely clear here: You do
Bruce,
You are getting into some kind of loop where not wanting to expend
unlimited effort on something means, to you, that the person doesn't
think the goal is important. Effort has to be balanced. This is not
the first time I have seen such loops. And why do you even care about
my
On 08/07/2013 10:35 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Actually, for me, motiving reviewers seems like the Lemon-Soaked Paper
Napkins, as it requires unbounded effort and its importance is not being
balanced with other priorities.
Ignoring the non-productive part of this thread, I would like to
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:39:01PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
You are getting into some kind of loop where not wanting to expend
unlimited effort on something means, to you, that the person doesn't
think the goal is important. Effort has to be balanced. This is not
the first
Well, reviewers on the bottom was just for 9.3 or 9.4, but the final
goal was to get reviewers who modified patches credited with the release
note items. I asked how that was to be accomplished, and suggested that
the only practical way would be for every committer to check the patch
chain
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 01:48:06PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Well, reviewers on the bottom was just for 9.3 or 9.4, but the final
goal was to get reviewers who modified patches credited with the release
note items. I asked how that was to be accomplished, and suggested that
the only
Michael who?
Blackwell, asssistant CFM for this CF.
9.4 CF1? Where are you recording the names? In the commitfest app?
Right now in a googledoc. The CF app has no such capability now,
although Magnus' new app might in the future.
OK, so the process is independent of commit activity. You
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 04:39:49PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
OK, so the process is independent of commit activity. You realize that
if someone significantly modifies a patch we already have them in the
commit message as an author and on the release note item, right? So you
are really
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:18:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 07/12/2013 10:49 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 07/12/2013 01:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
-- a couple of compromise proposals were made:
a) that reviewers who do actual code modification of the
Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:18:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Right cause if a reviewer ends up writing (or cleaning up) all the
docs, I would say they deserve very close to equal credit. As an
example.
I can do whatever we agree to in the release notes. The
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 04:43:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:18:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Right cause if a reviewer ends up writing (or cleaning up) all the
docs, I would say they deserve very close to equal credit. As an
On 08/02/2013 01:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 04:43:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:18:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Right cause if a reviewer ends up writing (or cleaning up) all the
docs, I would say they deserve
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 02:07:53PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 08/02/2013 01:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 04:43:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:18:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Right cause if a reviewer ends
On 08/02/2013 02:24 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Based on existing workflow, we need those reviewer names in the commit
message. I don't see how the CommitFestManager can help with that.
We can change the workflow. It's ours, there's no government agency
mandating it.
Anyway, the list from the
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 02:36:42PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 08/02/2013 02:24 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Based on existing workflow, we need those reviewer names in the commit
message. I don't see how the CommitFestManager can help with that.
We can change the workflow. It's ours,
On 08/02/2013 03:18 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
You're making a big deal out of what's a minor clerical detail. Don't
let minutia which any secretary could take care of get in the way of an
important project goal, that is, rewarding reviewers so that lack of
reviewers stops being a major project
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 03:55:27PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 08/02/2013 03:18 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
You're making a big deal out of what's a minor clerical detail. Don't
let minutia which any secretary could take care of get in the way of an
important project goal, that is, rewarding
Folks,
Well, I didn't get much in the way of poll responses for the straw
poll. However, let me sum up:
-- two hackers thought that reviewers didn't deserve any credit at all.
-- of the majority of respondants, things were about evenly split
between people who favored big list at the end and
Josh Berkus wrote:
-- a couple of compromise proposals were made:
a) that reviewers who do actual code modification of the patch get
credited on the feature, and those who just review it get credited at
the bottom of the release notes, or
b) that all names move to a web page on
On 07/12/2013 01:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
-- a couple of compromise proposals were made:
a) that reviewers who do actual code modification of the patch get
credited on the feature, and those who just review it get credited at
the bottom of the release notes, or
b)
On 07/12/2013 10:49 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 07/12/2013 01:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
-- a couple of compromise proposals were made:
a) that reviewers who do actual code modification of the patch get
credited on the feature, and those who just review it get
27 matches
Mail list logo
