Re: [HACKERS] 9.2 commitfest closure (was Command Triggers, v16)
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:45:29AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > Let's split the difference: how about we close it a week from this > > Friday. ?That would be April 6, 2012, ten days from today. > > Anybody, anybody? Can we try to get some agreement on this? +1 -- 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] 9.2 commitfest closure (was Command Triggers, v16)
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Let's split the difference: how about we close it a week from this >> Friday. That would be April 6, 2012, ten days from today. > Anybody, anybody? Can we try to get some agreement on this? Works for me. regards, tom lane -- 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] 9.2 commitfest closure (was Command Triggers, v16)
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Fine. What do you propose, specifically? >>> >>> The end of the month is coming up. How about we propose to close the >>> 'fest on April 1st? Anything that's not committable by then goes to >>> the 9.3 list. If one week seems too short, how about 2 weeks? >> >> Let's split the difference: how about we close it a week from this >> Friday. That would be April 6, 2012, ten days from today. > > Anybody, anybody? Can we try to get some agreement on this? I agree. I have a few projects still on the table myself, but my main concern is Alvaro's FK locks patch. Depending on how the bones lie I will finish up some combination of those by end of next week. -- 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] 9.2 commitfest closure (was Command Triggers, v16)
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Fine. What do you propose, specifically? >> >> The end of the month is coming up. How about we propose to close the >> 'fest on April 1st? Anything that's not committable by then goes to >> the 9.3 list. If one week seems too short, how about 2 weeks? > > Let's split the difference: how about we close it a week from this > Friday. That would be April 6, 2012, ten days from today. Anybody, anybody? Can we try to get some agreement on this? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] 9.2 commitfest closure (was Command Triggers, v16)
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Fine. What do you propose, specifically? > > The end of the month is coming up. How about we propose to close the > 'fest on April 1st? Anything that's not committable by then goes to > the 9.3 list. If one week seems too short, how about 2 weeks? Let's split the difference: how about we close it a week from this Friday. That would be April 6, 2012, ten days from today. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] 9.2 commitfest closure (was Command Triggers, v16)
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thom Brown writes: >> This is probably a dumb question but... surely there's more than 2 >> committers able to review? > > Able and willing might be two different things. Alvaro, Heikki, and > Magnus have all been looking at stuff, but I think they may be getting > burned out too. If people are keeping score, add myself and Robert also, maybe others - I've not been watching too closely. On average there appears to be about 10 patches per active committer in this CF. Given the complexity of the patches in last CF always seems to be higher, that is a huge number and represents weeks of work. One of the key problems I see is that few people actually get paid to do this, so its fairly hard to allocate time. I want to make it a policy of "1 for 1" so if you write a patch you need to review a patch. That way sponsors are forced to spend money on review time for stuff they may not care about as a trade for getting reviews on stuff they do. This would take pressure off the few. -- 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] 9.2 commitfest closure (was Command Triggers, v16)
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:39, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > Thom Brown writes: >> This is probably a dumb question but... surely there's more than 2 >> committers able to review? > > Able and willing might be two different things. Alvaro, Heikki, and > Magnus have all been looking at stuff, but I think they may be getting > burned out too. Can't honestly claim I've been burned out by it - more that I feel bad fo rnot having "done my part" :-O It's not the CF itself, but a whole lot of other things (non-postgres) that have been taking my time. I'll try to get my head around the pg_stat_bgwriter patch - which I htink actually has the wrong status on the CF page after talking to Greg about it tonight. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.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] 9.2 commitfest closure (was Command Triggers, v16)
Robert Haas writes: > On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> 2. I'm not sure which patches Tom is planning to look at or in what >>> order, so I've been avoiding the ones he seems to be taking an >>> interest in. >> Well, I think I'm definitely on the hook for the pg_stat_statements, >> pgsql_fdw, foreign table stats, and caching-stable-subexpressions >> patches, and I should look at the libpq alternate row returning >> mechanism because I suspect I was the last one to mess with that libpq >> code in any detail. > How long will that all take? Dunno, but surely at least a day apiece if they're to be pushed to commit. On the other hand, considering that none of them is actually Ready For Committer right now, we possibly shouldn't expect that they'll all get committed. >>> Personally, I am about at the point where I'd like to punt everything >>> and move on. As nice as it would be to squeeze a few more things into >>> 9.2, there WILL be a 9.3. If a few less people had submitted >>> half-baked code at the last minute and a few more people had helped >>> with review, we'd be done by now. >> The main reason I proposed setting a schedule a few weeks ago was that >> I was afraid the commitfest would otherwise end precisely in a "we're >> tired out, we're punting everything to 9.3" moment. Without some >> definite goal to work towards, it'll just keep stretching out until >> we've had enough. I'd prefer it end in a more orderly fashion than >> that. The end result will be the same, in the sense that some of the >> stuff that's still-not-ready-for-committer is going to get punted, >> but people might have a less bad taste in their mouths about why. > Fine. What do you propose, specifically? The end of the month is coming up. How about we propose to close the 'fest on April 1st? Anything that's not committable by then goes to the 9.3 list. If one week seems too short, how about 2 weeks? Thom Brown writes: > This is probably a dumb question but... surely there's more than 2 > committers able to review? Able and willing might be two different things. Alvaro, Heikki, and Magnus have all been looking at stuff, but I think they may be getting burned out too. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
