On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There are some place with the next commitfest deadlines (2014/06 and
> 2014/09) ?
>
> Regards,
Those deadlines won't be finalized until after PGCon, but it seems
likely to me that we'll do about what we did last year.
-
Hi all,
There are some place with the next commitfest deadlines (2014/06 and
2014/09) ?
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com
>> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fab
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Indeed. I once suggested only half jokingly that we should have a "Coder of
> the month" award.
I suggest that it be named "The Tom Lane" award, and disqualify Tom from
winning (sorry Tom). ;-)
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Brendan Jurd writes:
>> One of the rewards for getting a patch into the tree is having your
>> name immortalised in the commit log. There's no such compensation for
>> reviewing patches.
>
> Well, that could be fixed: instead of
>
> blah
On Nov 16, 2009, at 8:47 PM, "Joshua D. Drake"
wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 19:15 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Brendan Jurd wrote:
One of the rewards for getting a patch into the tree is having your
name immortalised in the commit log. There's no such compensation
for
reviewing patches
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 19:15 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Brendan Jurd wrote:
> > One of the rewards for getting a patch into the tree is having your
> > name immortalised in the commit log. There's no such compensation for
> > reviewing patches.
> >
> > I think creating incentives to review i
Brendan Jurd wrote:
One of the rewards for getting a patch into the tree is having your
name immortalised in the commit log. There's no such compensation for
reviewing patches.
I think creating incentives to review is going to be more potent and
more enjoyable for everyone involved than punit
Brendan Jurd writes:
> One of the rewards for getting a patch into the tree is having your
> name immortalised in the commit log. There's no such compensation for
> reviewing patches.
Well, that could be fixed: instead of
blah blah blah
Joe Coder
we could write
blah b
2009/11/17 David Fetter :
> In the PostgreSQL Weekly News, I track patches, and apparently at
> least one person reads that section. Would it be helpful to track
> reviews somehow during commitfests with the reviewers' names
> prominently attached?
>
Yes. See also my suggestion [1] that we do a
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:41:02PM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> j...@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
> > On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't "totally evilly
> >> draconian."
> >>
> >> There's a difference betw
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> True. But "not enough reviewers to review all the patches we get" is
>> also a barrier to contribution.
>
> No. It is a barrier of contribution not to contribution.
I am not sure exactly what that means, but I agree that it isn't quite
t
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 12:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't "totally evilly
> >> draconian."
> >>
> >> There's a difference bet
j...@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
> On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
>
>> Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't "totally evilly
>> draconian."
>>
>> There's a difference between:
>>
>> "You haven't reviewed any patches - we'll ignore you forever!"
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
>
>> Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't "totally evilly
>> draconian."
>>
>> There's a difference between:
>>
>> "You haven't reviewed any patches - we'll ignore you fore
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't "totally evilly
> draconian."
>
> There's a difference between:
>
> "You haven't reviewed any patches - we'll ignore you forever!"
>
> and
>
> "Since you haven't reviewed any patches, we a
and...@dunslane.net (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I am personally quite tired of reviewing patches for people who don't
>> in turn review mine (or someone's). It makes me feel like not
>> working on this project. If we can solve that problem without
>> implementing a policy of
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am probably more able than most to adjust my schedule to devote time
to committing things.
Yes, time is what has restricted what I can do. I'll try to do a bit
more for this coming commitfest, but I'm rather sad that I haven't made
a more substantial contribution
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Having read the discussion and heard people's opinions, I am now
> thinking that I need to get more involved in committing patches.
Woot.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
Robert Haas wrote:
> Anyhow, as Bruce pointed out on another message, in some sense we are
> getting sidetracked. Good reviewers opting out of the system *is* a
> problem, but lack of a sufficient number of sufficiently involved
> committers is a bigger one.
I want to thank everyone for the fine
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 23:10 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> I have to admit that at least for me personally its way much easer to get
> started on a patch one finds interesting than when not
I find it much easier to get interested in a patch after I get started
reviewing it ;)
Seriously, that's ha
On Friday 13 November 2009 18:56:01 Greg Smith wrote:
> Take a look at
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view?id=4 right
> now. I've been suggesting to people that they assign themselves to the
> patches they like, and it's nearing completely populated two days before
> the
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 12:56 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> For now, simply telling submitters that the
> review of their own patches might be influenced by whether they do a
> good job reviewing someone else's has improved things considerably
> over past CommitFests, and it's hard to imagine how som
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 10:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> To put this another way, if everyone who submitted a patch reviewed a
> patch, we could finish up each CommitFest in 2-3 weeks instead of a
> whole month
Agreed. That's the idea, lets go with it to see if it works.
--
Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 10:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > All the CF manager needs to do is ensure that every patch submitted
> > chalks up one review. If you think about it, we wouldn't actually need
> > any rr reviewers at all then, because if we have 20 patches we would
> > h
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 10:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Keep in mind that
> this is a problem that *does not apply to you*. You are a committer.
> If no one reviews your patch, you will eventually go ahead and commit
> it anyway. If no one reviews my patch, it doesn't go in.
That is the problem.
On Fri, November 13, 2009 1:04 pm, Robert Haas wrote:
> the mere fact that we are even *discussing*
> whether it should be mandatory has led to a bumper crop of reviewers,
Non sequitur.
I think it is more likely that the "bumper crop of reviewers" is due
to the lengthy discussion about the lack o
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Please don't sabotage my effort to ensure
>> an adequate supply of reviewers unless you have a competing proposal.
>
> I don't think you can reasonably demand this. If I don't think your
> suggestion is going to improv
Simon Riggs wrote:
All the CF manager needs to do is ensure that every patch submitted
chalks up one review. If you think about it, we wouldn't actually need
any rr reviewers at all then, because if we have 20 patches we would
have 20 reviews due. So the whole scheme is self-balancing
In fact, ju
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> I'm thinking of something like a Reviewer Hall of Fame, or Honour
> Roll. During and after a commitfest, it shows how many reviews have
> been completed by each person [1].
>
> This could be included in the Weekly News at the CF's conclusion
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> I agree with Tom though that we don't really need a huge pool of people
> who chip in with one hour per month. We need people who know the
> codebase pretty well, and who can spend a fair amount of time to do
> thorough review of comple
Robert Haas wrote:
Please don't sabotage my effort to ensure
an adequate supply of reviewers unless you have a competing proposal.
I don't think you can reasonably demand this. If I don't think your
suggestion is going to improve matters I have a right to say so.
cheers
andrew
--
S
2009/11/14 Heikki Linnakangas :
> I think we (the commitfest manager?) should simply send polite message
> to any regulars who submits patches but hasn't volunteered for review.
> Along the lines of:
>
I certainly endorse Heikki's suggestion, but I wonder if we can do
more to make reviewing patche
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:31 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Well, right now we ask for docs, but if they are not supplied, I think
> > we just write them ourselves. Is a different enforcement method being
> > suggested here?
>
> And we never bump late patches, nor reject t
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs writes:
>>> All the CF manager needs to do is ensure that every patch submitted
>>> chalks up one review. If you think about it, we wouldn't actually need
>>> any rr reviewers at all then, because if we have 20
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> All the CF manager needs to do is ensure that every patch submitted
>> chalks up one review. If you think about it, we wouldn't actually need
>> any rr reviewers at all then, because if we have 20 patches we would
>> have
Simon Riggs writes:
> All the CF manager needs to do is ensure that every patch submitted
> chalks up one review. If you think about it, we wouldn't actually need
> any rr reviewers at all then, because if we have 20 patches we would
> have 20 reviews due. So the whole scheme is self-balancing.
W
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> Requiring people to write docs or any other patch submission rules has
>> never been counterproductive. People could easily say, "English is not
>> my first language, therefore I skip all
* Andrew Dunstan [091113 09:52]:
> In that case people are working on their own patches. That's quite
> different from asking/requiring them to work on somebody else's.
But is it?
Just s/patches/itches/
i.e. The "patched code implenting feature $X" is their main itch... They
scratch that, an
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> I am personally quite tired of
>> reviewing patches for people who don't in turn review mine (or
>> someone's). It makes me feel like not working on this project. If we
>> can solve that problem without implementin
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The docs case is a good example. We do ask people to write docs, but I
don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs. I am
not against any of the ideas suggested in this thread --- I am just
pointin
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The docs case is a good example. We do ask people to write docs, but I
> don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs. I am
> not against any of the ideas suggested in this thread --- I am just
> pointing out we are headin
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:31 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Well, right now we ask for docs, but if they are not supplied, I think
> we just write them ourselves. Is a different enforcement method being
> suggested here?
And we never bump late patches, nor reject them if sent in missing
format etc
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 08:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > We do ask people to write docs, but I
> > don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs.
>
> Yes, that is a good example. It's "a rule", plain and simple. Nobody
> gets their spleen removed for br
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 08:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> We do ask people to write docs, but I
> don't think we will reject patches if people don't supply docs.
Yes, that is a good example. It's "a rule", plain and simple. Nobody
gets their spleen removed for breaking it, yet it is still someho
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 08:46 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Organizing contributors on a project like this is like herding cats.
> Threats and penalties are unlikely to be effective.
People have spoken against this because of the enforcement issue. If we
talk about this like we were suggesting han
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 13:34 +, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > Requiring people to write docs or any other patch submission rules has
> > never been counterproductive. People could easily say, "English is not
> > my first language, therefore I skip
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Requiring people to write docs or any other patch submission rules has
> never been counterproductive. People could easily say, "English is not
> my first language, therefore I skip all comments and docs". But they
> don't, because we require that, as a hard rule. Nobody has ev
Robert Haas wrote:
I am personally quite tired of
reviewing patches for people who don't in turn review mine (or
someone's). It makes me feel like not working on this project. If we
can solve that problem without implementing a policy of this type,
that is good. I would much prefer to run by
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Requiring people to write docs or any other patch submission rules has
> never been counterproductive. People could easily say, "English is not
> my first language, therefore I skip all comments and docs". But they
> don't, because we require
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 10:26 +, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> What about people who contribute hours and hours of their time in
> >> other ways? Are they required to contribute even more of their time to
> >> review as well, just to help their own o
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> What about people who contribute hours and hours of their time in
>> other ways? Are they required to contribute even more of their time to
>> review as well, just to help their own occasional code contributions
>> get through the process?
>
>
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 08:33 +, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >> Personally, I would not propose to impose this rule of first-time
> >> contributors, or even second-time contributors. But by about patch #3
> >> I think everyone should be pitching
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Personally, I would not propose to impose this rule of first-time
>> contributors, or even second-time contributors. But by about patch #3
>> I think everyone should be pitching in.
>
> I hate to ask, but how would we enforce this? Do we
Robert Haas wrote:
>
> That wasn't my intention. I really was assuming that we would just
> let those patches drop on the floor, and that they would not be picked
> up either by reviewers or committers.
Surely it should depend on the nature of the patch.
For an extreme strawman, segfault fixes
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> We just wouldn't assign round-robin reviewers to such patches. ?If
>> >> someone wants to volunteer, more power to them, but we would encourage
>> >> people to focus their efforts on the patches of people who were
>>
Robert Haas wrote:
> >> We just wouldn't assign round-robin reviewers to such patches. ?If
> >> someone wants to volunteer, more power to them, but we would encourage
> >> people to focus their efforts on the patches of people who were
> >> themselves reviewing. ?It's important to keep in mind that
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> Personally, I would not propose to impose this rule of first-time
>> >> contributors, or even second-time contributors. ?But by about patch #3
>> >> I think everyone should be pitching in.
>> >
>> > I hate to ask, bu
Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Personally, I would not propose to impose this rule of first-time
> >> contributors, or even second-time contributors. ?But by about patch #3
> >> I think everyone should be pitching in.
> >
> > I hate to ask, but how would we enforce this? ?Do we no longer apply
> > patches
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Albert Cervera i Areny
>> wrote:
>> > A Dijous, 12 de novembre de 2009, Euler Taveira de Oliveira va escriure:
>> >> Simon Riggs escreveu:
>> >> > So, I
>> >> > propose that we simply ig
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Albert Cervera i Areny
> wrote:
> > A Dijous, 12 de novembre de 2009, Euler Taveira de Oliveira va escriure:
> >> Simon Riggs escreveu:
> >> > So, I
> >> > propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
> >> > done suffic
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 14:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > Not all contributors are fluent English readers and writers.
>> >
>> > I certainly do not discourage those people from reviewing, but I can
>> > understand how it might be more frustrati
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 14:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Not all contributors are fluent English readers and writers.
> >
> > I certainly do not discourage those people from reviewing, but I can
> > understand how it might be more frustrating and less productive for
> > them. An important part of
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 11:36 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I agree. I would quibble only with the details. I think we should
>> require patch authors to act as a reviewer for any CommitFest for
>> which they have submitted patches. We don't nee
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 11:36 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I agree. I would quibble only with the details. I think we should
> require patch authors to act as a reviewer for any CommitFest for
> which they have submitted patches. We don't need every patch author
> to review as many patches as they
Robert Haas escribió:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Albert Cervera i Areny
> wrote:
> > A Dijous, 12 de novembre de 2009, Euler Taveira de Oliveira va escriure:
> >> Simon Riggs escreveu:
> >> > So, I
> >> > propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
> >> > done suf
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 15:52 -0200, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Simon Riggs escreveu:
> > So, I
> > propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
> > done sufficient review to be allowed to develop again.
>
> Is it really impolite for a first-contributor, no?
I beli
2009/11/13 Euler Taveira de Oliveira :
> Simon Riggs escreveu:
>> So, I
>> propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
>> done sufficient review to be allowed to develop again.
>>
> Is it really impolite for a first-contributor, no?
>
I support Simon's proposal, but I thi
A Dijous, 12 de novembre de 2009, Euler Taveira de Oliveira va escriure:
> Simon Riggs escreveu:
> > So, I
> > propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
> > done sufficient review to be allowed to develop again.
>
> Is it really impolite for a first-contributor, no?
>
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Albert Cervera i Areny
wrote:
> A Dijous, 12 de novembre de 2009, Euler Taveira de Oliveira va escriure:
>> Simon Riggs escreveu:
>> > So, I
>> > propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
>> > done sufficient review to be allowed to deve
> I like this idea. Perhaps also if a person is reviewing a patch for
> the first time, we could make some effort to get a more experienced
> person paired up with them.
When I was CFM last year, I assigned patches for review first if the
patch author was doing a review themselves. Patches whose
Simon Riggs escreveu:
> So, I
> propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
> done sufficient review to be allowed to develop again.
>
Is it really impolite for a first-contributor, no?
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hacker
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Not a new idea, but I think we should require all patch submitters to do
> one review per submission. There needs to be a balance between time
> spent on review and time spent on dev. The only real way this happens in
> any community is by pee
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Not a new idea, but I think we should require all patch submitters to do
> one review per submission. There needs to be a balance between time
> spent on review and time spent on dev. The only real way this happens in
> any community is by pee
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> I'd be happy to get together at some pre-appointed hour this weekend
>> (Saturday / Sunday) to talk it over by phone / IRC. PDXPUG was already
>> planning to get together to review some patches this Sunday from 3-5pm
>> PST, so that is a conv
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 06:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Having said that,
> I'm not capable of single-handedly effecting an on-time release
You're bloody good and the task needs to fit our capability anyway.
So, yes, you are.
> We need larger, more robust pools of
> committers, reviewers, comm
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Thursday 12 November 2009 12:46:46 Robert Haas wrote:
>> Perhaps for next release we should consider spacing the CommitFests
>> out a little more.
> That may lead to quite a bit frustration on the contributor side though. It
> can be very
Hi,
On Thursday 12 November 2009 12:46:46 Robert Haas wrote:
> Perhaps for next release we should consider spacing the CommitFests
> out a little more.
That may lead to quite a bit frustration on the contributor side though. It
can be very frustrating to have no input for a even longer timeframe
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 20:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
>> next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
>> chunk of the September CommitFest, I am f
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 20:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
> next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
> chunk of the September CommitFest, I am feeling a bit burned out.
You did a grand job and everybody
Robert Haas wrote:
Here's an attempt.
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_a_CommitFest
Perfect, that's the sort of thing I was looking for the other day but
couldn't find anywhere. I just made a pass through better wiki-fying
that and linking it to the related pages in this area.
Two
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> Selena Deckelmann wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was just poking around on the Wiki, and it looks like the role of the
>> CommitFest manager is
Robert Haas escreveu:
> I think an automatic system would probably not be too valuable
>
I have the same impression.
> It's easy to generate systems that spew out a lot of email, but the
> system doesn't really have any understanding of what is really going
> on. When I send out emails to nag pe
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Selena Deckelmann wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>
>
> I was just poking around on the Wiki, and it looks like the role of the
> CommitFest manager isn't very well documented yet.
>
>
> It's pretty straightforwar
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> wrote:
>>> why we need a full time manager at all?
>>> why not simply use -rrreviewers to track the status of a patch? of
>>> course,
Selena Deckelmann wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
I was just poking around on the Wiki, and it looks like the role of the
CommitFest manager isn't very well documented yet.
It's pretty straightforward. Robert has actually done a great job of
communicating ab
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Jaime Casanova
> wrote:
>> why we need a full time manager at all?
>> why not simply use -rrreviewers to track the status of a patch? of
>> course, we hope the author or reviewer to change the status as
>> appr
Selena,
> I'd be happy to get together at some pre-appointed hour this weekend
> (Saturday / Sunday) to talk it over by phone / IRC. PDXPUG was already
> planning to get together to review some patches this Sunday from 3-5pm
> PST, so that is a convenient time for me.
Aren't you running OpenSQL t
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> why we need a full time manager at all?
> why not simply use -rrreviewers to track the status of a patch? of
> course, we hope the author or reviewer to change the status as
> appropiate but we have seen many people including missing discuss
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> The next CommitFest is scheduled to start in a week. So far, it
> doesn't look too bad, though a lot could change between now and then.
>
> I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
> next CommitFest. Having done al
Selena Deckelmann wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
chunk of the September CommitFest,
Hi!
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
>> next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
>> chunk of the September CommitFest, I am feeling a b
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
chunk of the September CommitFest, I am feeling a bit burned out.
I was just poking around on the Wiki, and it looks
> I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
> next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
> chunk of the September CommitFest, I am feeling a bit burned out.
Dave, Selena and I will all be in Japan during the first week of the CF.
I can help af
*snip*
One pretty major fly in the ointment is that neither Hot Standby nor
Streaming Replication has been committed or shows much sign of being
about to be committed. I think this is bad. These are big features
that figure to have some bugs and break some things. If they're not
committed in
Robert Haas writes:
> I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
> next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
> chunk of the September CommitFest, I am feeling a bit burned out.
You did yeoman work on both --- thanks for that!
Do we have anothe
The next CommitFest is scheduled to start in a week. So far, it
doesn't look too bad, though a lot could change between now and then.
I would personally prefer not to be involved in the management of the
next CommitFest. Having done all of the July CommitFest and a good
chunk of the September Co
96 matches
Mail list logo
