Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 be around if people lose interest or the system becomes unworkable. Both I and other people have already addressed #2 and #3. You're also having a huge failure of perspective here. Motivating reviewers allows our project to continue developing PostgreSQL. Items 2 and 3 are so insignificant in comparison to that as to not be worth discussing. 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 are being Mr. Lemon-Soaked Paper Napkin. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 address the other items --- that's fine --- I will still be around if people lose interest or the system becomes unworkable. Both I and other people have already addressed #2 and #3. You're also having a huge failure of perspective here. Motivating reviewers allows our project to continue developing PostgreSQL. Items 2 and 3 are so insignificant in comparison to that as to not be worth discussing. 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 are being Mr. Lemon-Soaked Paper Napkin. Holy crap Josh. I agree that we should give reviews space in the release notes, but could you please cut the ad-hominem bullshit? You're preventing your own success here. 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 don't want to address the other items --- that's fine --- I will still be around if people lose interest or the system becomes unworkable. Both I and other people have already addressed #2 and #3. You're also having a huge failure of perspective here. Motivating reviewers allows our project to continue developing PostgreSQL. Items 2 and 3 are so insignificant in comparison to that as to not be worth discussing. OK, my analysis was accurate then --- for you, #1 overshadows numbers 2 and 3. I don't share those priorities, and the work required is unbounded (no #2), so I will not perform additional work to help with #1. 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 are being Mr. Lemon-Soaked Paper Napkin. 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. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 are being Mr. Lemon-Soaked Paper Napkin. Holy crap Josh. I agree that we should give reviews space in the release notes, but could you please cut the ad-hominem bullshit? You're preventing your own success here. Huh? I was comparing Bruce's *argument* to a scene in Hitchhiker's Guide. How is that ad hominem? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 think that our project has more than enough reviewers? I want to be crystal-clear on your opinion. I will point out that you did exactly zero reviews in the last commitfest, which makes me wonder what your opinion of we have enough reviewers is based on. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 reviewers do is important at all, and you think that our project has more than enough reviewers? I want to be crystal-clear on your opinion. Bruce certainly didn't say that and it's rather disingenuous to claim that he did. What I read is that he simply pointed out that we have multiple priorities and need to consider work on acquiring new reviewers in balance with the rest. Also mentioned is that it's unclear how one might bound the work of getting new reviewers- you can't say it'll take X hours to get enough reviewers or even it'll take X hours to get 5 new reviewers. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 not think that the work reviewers do is important at all, and you think that our project has more than enough reviewers? I want to be crystal-clear on your opinion. I will point out that you did exactly zero reviews in the last commitfest, which makes me wonder what your opinion of we have enough reviewers is based on. Only Lemon-Soaked Paper Napkins users think that everything is binary --- every effort has to be balanced against the work involved, which was #2 on my list. 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 opinion? And I have never said we have enough reviewers. Is this where you say I should be doing more? I thought we dealt with that already. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 opinion? Aha, OK. So you're talking about all the different things we might do to get more reviewers. I'm only talking about adding reviewers to the bottom of the release notes, which is certainly a bounded activity of *very* limited effort. Which is why I was confused and aghast at your talk of unbounded work. To be completely clear: I am talking only about the compromise discussed on this thread, namely: a) listing reviewers who did extensive work as co-authors on the patch, and b) listing other reviewers at the bottom of the release notes. Per earlier discussions. You started this thread by claiming that adding the reviewers to 9.4 would be too hard, and I argued that it would not and in fact I'm already working on it. Nothing I've talked about in this thread has been about anything else. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 mention that motivating reviewers is not necessarily complicated. We just have to ask ourselves what motivates a person: The feeling that their work is worthwhile, productive, will be appreciated and that they will receive recognition for the effort. Right now, we do not publicly outside of the dome that is -hackers provide those incentives. Give reviewers the just recognition they deserve and I believe we will see more reviewing effort. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579 PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc For my dreams of your image that blossoms a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 time I have seen such loops. And why do you even care about my opinion? Aha, OK. So you're talking about all the different things we might do to get more reviewers. I'm only talking about adding reviewers to the bottom of the release notes, which is certainly a bounded activity of *very* limited effort. Which is why I was confused and aghast at your talk of unbounded work. 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 to see who else had modified the patch. You suggested something about the commit-fest-manager doing it, and I couldn't see how that would help because it has to be in the commit message at the time the release notes are being written. You said our release note writing process was not written stone, and that we had to do whatever it takes to get those names on the items in the release notes. At that point I pointed out that there was no consideration of the effort necessary to accomplish this, and that's how we got here today. To be completely clear: I am talking only about the compromise discussed on this thread, namely: a) listing reviewers who did extensive work as co-authors on the patch, and See above --- I need to know how that is going to get to the release note items _with_ reasonable effort. b) listing other reviewers at the bottom of the release notes. Yes, that is somewhat easy in that we can get the names from the commit-fest app, but it doesn't include reviewers who replied via email but did not record their names on the commit-fest app. I can tell you from my release note writing experience that a partial job in this area is likely to get lots of negative feedback from people who are excluded. As an example, I got a pg_upgrade patch fix for 9.2, thought it was ugly, tried other methods, ended up doing the same thing the original patch author did, but didn't mention the patch author because I had forgotten I ended up with the same fix. When the minor release notes came out, the person complained on the hackers list, and Simon and Tom had to apologize as I was away: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABRT9RAe3zxdins=BBysjqEPA8=nqnxwta4a0xm01pbdvbm...@mail.gmail.com My point is this has to be done accurately. Per earlier discussions. You started this thread by claiming that adding the reviewers to 9.4 would be too hard, and I argued that it would not and in fact I'm already working on it. Nothing I've talked about in this thread has been about anything else. You have to distinguish between names at the end of the release notes, and names on release note items, and you have to tell us how this going to happen with reasonable effort. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 to see who else had modified the patch. Actually, it's not that hard. Someone who modified the patch is going to post it to -hackers, and we have that all in the archives. Michael and I are combing through the threads from CF1 now to get that list; you're talking a few hours effort at most. Of course, the actual patch author/committers need to verify that these people actually did a lot of *useful* work, but that isn't much effort from them. You suggested something about the commit-fest-manager doing it, and I couldn't see how that would help because it has to be in the commit message at the time the release notes are being written. Why? You didn't provide *any* justification as to why the release notes could not include input *in addition to* commit messages. In fact, the release notes *do* incorporate additional input, every year. You said our release note writing process was not written stone, and that we had to do whatever it takes to get those names on the items in the release notes. At that point I pointed out that there was no consideration of the effort necessary to accomplish this, and that's how we got here today. The only additional effort I'm asking of you, Bruce, is to accept patches on the release notes. That really doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. Yes, that is somewhat easy in that we can get the names from the commit-fest app, but it doesn't include reviewers who replied via email but did not record their names on the commit-fest app. I can tell you from my release note writing experience that a partial job in this area is likely to get lots of negative feedback from people who are excluded. That's why it'll be a social process. Next week I'll be posting a list of patches and reviewers from CF1 to this list for other people to correct and expand. Just like the code itself, if everybody reviews the list of reviewers, it'll be as good as we can get it. My point is this has to be done accurately. It will be just as accurate as the current process, which, as you've just pointed out, is not 100% accurate either. You have to distinguish between names at the end of the release notes, and names on release note items, and you have to tell us how this going to happen with reasonable effort. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. I've already spent more time arguing with you than it will take me to do the work. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 practical way would be for every committer to check the patch chain to see who else had modified the patch. Actually, it's not that hard. Someone who modified the patch is going to post it to -hackers, and we have that all in the archives. Michael and I are combing through the threads from CF1 now to get that list; you're talking a few hours effort at most. Michael who? 9.4 CF1? Where are you recording the names? In the commitfest app? Of course, the actual patch author/committers need to verify that these people actually did a lot of *useful* work, but that isn't much effort from them. 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 looking for reviews that modify the patch but not enough for a committer to include their name in the commit message as an author. You suggested something about the commit-fest-manager doing it, and I couldn't see how that would help because it has to be in the commit message at the time the release notes are being written. Why? You didn't provide *any* justification as to why the release notes could not include input *in addition to* commit messages. In fact, the release notes *do* incorporate additional input, every year. Yes, we can always add --- the problem is getting the content to add. You said our release note writing process was not written stone, and that we had to do whatever it takes to get those names on the items in the release notes. At that point I pointed out that there was no consideration of the effort necessary to accomplish this, and that's how we got here today. The only additional effort I'm asking of you, Bruce, is to accept patches on the release notes. That really doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. Anyone can commit patches to the release notes. I am unlikely to do it, as I lack confidence in the process, for reasons already outlined. Yes, that is somewhat easy in that we can get the names from the commit-fest app, but it doesn't include reviewers who replied via email but did not record their names on the commit-fest app. I can tell you from my release note writing experience that a partial job in this area is likely to get lots of negative feedback from people who are excluded. That's why it'll be a social process. Next week I'll be posting a list of patches and reviewers from CF1 to this list for other people to correct and expand. Just like the code itself, if everybody reviews the list of reviewers, it'll be as good as we can get it. OK, at least that is a plan. Is that your plan for the future too? -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 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 looking for reviews that modify the patch but not enough for a committer to include their name in the commit message as an author. Oh, good point, I can look at the commit messages for where I don't need to bother. However, you pointed out that *during* CF1, the committers *didn't know* that they were supposed to include reviewers who did major work in the commit message. And they might miss them in the future. Anyone can commit patches to the release notes. I am unlikely to do it, as I lack confidence in the process, for reasons already outlined. Bruce, you are steadfastly resistant to change of any kind. That's why it'll be a social process. Next week I'll be posting a list of patches and reviewers from CF1 to this list for other people to correct and expand. Just like the code itself, if everybody reviews the list of reviewers, it'll be as good as we can get it. OK, at least that is a plan. Is that your plan for the future too? Sure. It's the open source way. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 looking for reviews that modify the patch but not enough for a committer to include their name in the commit message as an author. Oh, good point, I can look at the commit messages for where I don't need to bother. However, you pointed out that *during* CF1, the committers *didn't know* that they were supposed to include reviewers who did major work in the commit message. And they might miss them in the future. Well, the clear way to do this would be to ask the committers if they can reliably take on this job. You are right for CF1 they treated reviewer patch modifications just like anyone else, but of course, the larger question is whether you _should_ treat the reviewers different, because other people are reviewers just not recorded as CF reviewers. Another question is whether committers are going to recognize CF reviewers vs. ordinary patch modifiers. Anyone can commit patches to the release notes. I am unlikely to do it, as I lack confidence in the process, for reasons already outlined. Bruce, you are steadfastly resistant to change of any kind. Perhaps I am pessimistic, but I need to have confidence in the process, and at this point, I don't, and considering how long it took for me to get an explanation of the process, this seems prudent. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 patch get credited on the feature, and those who just review it get credited at the bottom of the release notes, or I'd probably say substantial or non-trivial, but otherwise +1 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 big question is whether committers can properly document these people. I do think the names are going to overwhelm the release note items and we will _again_ remove some or all names. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 big question is whether committers can properly document these people. I don't see why not. Most of them, if not all, already do. I do think the names are going to overwhelm the release note items and we will _again_ remove some or all names. There's plenty of opinion to the contrary; but then it's just opinion. I think the idea of trying it at least once has merit. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 example. I can do whatever we agree to in the release notes. The big question is whether committers can properly document these people. I don't see why not. Most of them, if not all, already do. Do they record which reviewers changed code and which just gave feedback? I do think the names are going to overwhelm the release note items and we will _again_ remove some or all names. There's plenty of opinion to the contrary; but then it's just opinion. I think the idea of trying it at least once has merit. This is what the 9.2 release notes looked like before I remove the reviewers: http://momjian.us/expire/release-9-2.html Most items had 2-3 names, and it was widely rejected. Of course, these were all reviewers, not just those that changed the code. I did not have details of which reviewers changed code and which just gave feedback. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 very close to equal credit. As an example. I can do whatever we agree to in the release notes. The big question is whether committers can properly document these people. I don't see why not. Most of them, if not all, already do. It is also my thinking that it is the job of the CommitFestManager to re-enforce this list by looking through the review list. If we do this on a per-CF basis, the workload won't become substantial; it's only if we wait until beta that it gets overwhelming. The CFM needs to supply the list of reviewers at the end anyway. Most items had 2-3 names, and it was widely rejected. Of course, these were all reviewers, not just those that changed the code. I did not have details of which reviewers changed code and which just gave feedback. I think widely rejected is an exaggeration; a few people objected stenuously. And the primary objection voiced was that people who did it compiles! shouldn't get equal credit with the original author of the patch. Which we're not proposing to do. BTW, all of this I'm talking about the 9.4 release notes, where we have the opportunity to start from the first CF. There's the question of what to do about the *9.3* release notes, which I'll address in a seperate email. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 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 big question is whether committers can properly document these people. I don't see why not. Most of them, if not all, already do. It is also my thinking that it is the job of the CommitFestManager to re-enforce this list by looking through the review list. If we do this on a per-CF basis, the workload won't become substantial; it's only if we wait until beta that it gets overwhelming. Based on existing workflow, we need those reviewer names in the commit message. I don't see how the CommitFestManager can help with that. The CFM needs to supply the list of reviewers at the end anyway. Why? Most items had 2-3 names, and it was widely rejected. Of course, these were all reviewers, not just those that changed the code. I did not have details of which reviewers changed code and which just gave feedback. I think widely rejected is an exaggeration; a few people objected stenuously. And the primary objection voiced was that people who did it compiles! shouldn't get equal credit with the original author of the patch. Which we're not proposing to do. Well, I had to remove it pretty quickly, so that is my recolletion. BTW, all of this I'm talking about the 9.4 release notes, where we have the opportunity to start from the first CF. There's the question of what to do about the *9.3* release notes, which I'll address in a seperate email. I am worried we are talking about 9.5 as we have already committed quite a bit to 9.4. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 CFM would just be to make sure nobody got missed; it's a double-check on the commit messages. The CFM needs to supply the list of reviewers at the end anyway. Why? Who else would do it? BTW, all of this I'm talking about the 9.4 release notes, where we have the opportunity to start from the first CF. There's the question of what to do about the *9.3* release notes, which I'll address in a seperate email. I am worried we are talking about 9.5 as we have already committed quite a bit to 9.4. 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 bottleneck. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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, there's no government agency mandating it. Anyway, the list from the CFM would just be to make sure nobody got missed; it's a double-check on the commit messages. The CFM needs to supply the list of reviewers at the end anyway. Why? Who else would do it? BTW, all of this I'm talking about the 9.4 release notes, where we have the opportunity to start from the first CF. There's the question of what to do about the *9.3* release notes, which I'll address in a seperate email. I am worried we are talking about 9.5 as we have already committed quite a bit to 9.4. 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 bottleneck. You are approaching this like it is a done deal and everyone agrees to it. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 bottleneck. You are approaching this like it is a done deal and everyone agrees to it. We already discussed it in the thread ad nauseum, and arrived at a compromise which everyone could live with. So from that perspective, it *is* a done deal, at least as far as 9.4 is concerned. At some point, we need to make a decision and move forward, instead of rehashing the same arguments forever. So if you're raising an objection to the compromise which many people already agreed to, then raise an objection and back it up. But don't sandbag. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 reviewers so that lack of reviewers stops being a major project bottleneck. You are approaching this like it is a done deal and everyone agrees to it. We already discussed it in the thread ad nauseum, and arrived at a compromise which everyone could live with. So from that perspective, it *is* a done deal, at least as far as 9.4 is concerned. At some point, we need to make a decision and move forward, instead of rehashing the same arguments forever. So if you're raising an objection to the compromise which many people already agreed to, then raise an objection and back it up. But don't sandbag. 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 be around if people lose interest or the system becomes unworkable. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 people who favored reviewer next to feature. Notably, those who favored reviewer next to feature also thought that our standards for what constitutes a review should be more stringent. -- reviewers, in general, were unanimous that the only thing which mattered in terms of rewarding reviewers was credit in the release notes, and that other rewards were nice but inconsequential. -- 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 www.postgresql.org and come out of the release notes entirely. Speaking as a commitfest manager, I favor compromise proposal (a), personally. Does (a) seem somehow terrible to anyone? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 www.postgresql.org and come out of the release notes entirely. Speaking as a commitfest manager, I favor compromise proposal (a), personally. Does (a) seem somehow terrible to anyone? I like (a) myself, though I'd amend it so that extensive work on the patch is required to qualify as co-author, which may or may not be code. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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) that all names move to a web page on www.postgresql.org and come out of the release notes entirely. Speaking as a commitfest manager, I favor compromise proposal (a), personally. Does (a) seem somehow terrible to anyone? I like (a) myself, though I'd amend it so that extensive work on the patch is required to qualify as co-author, which may or may not be code. I'd probably say substantial or non-trivial, but otherwise +1 cheers andrew -- 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] Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
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 credited at the bottom of the release notes, or I'd probably say substantial or non-trivial, but otherwise +1 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. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579 PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc For my dreams of your image that blossoms a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
