On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Simon Riggs wrote:
I think this should be organised with different kinds of reviewer...
Great post. Rewrote the intro a bit and turned it into a first bit of
reviewer training material at
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch
--
* Greg Smith [EMAIL
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Marko Kreen wrote:
I think we have better results and more relaxed atmospere if we
use following task description for reviewers:
I assimilated this and some of your later comments into
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch as well. I disagree
with your
On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 04:03 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Simon Riggs wrote:
I think this should be organised with different kinds of reviewer...
Great post. Rewrote the intro a bit and turned it into a first bit of
reviewer training material at
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 09:54:02PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
* coding review - does it follow standard code guidelines? Are there
portability issues? Will it work on Windows/BSD etc? Are there
sufficient comments?
* code
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing
them.
At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need
your
help reviewing
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need your
help reviewing patches! There are several easy patches in the list, so
I can assign them to beginners.
It would be a reasonable rule that all patch
Josh Berkus wrote:
Hackers,
We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing them.
At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need your
help reviewing patches! There are several easy
That way, instead of just an appeal to the masses to volunteer for
$NEBULOUS_TASK, we can say something like Please volunteer to review
patches. Doing an initial patch review is easy, please see our guide
link to learn more.
+1. I'll review a patch if you like, but the patch I have in this
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 12:18 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
It would be a reasonable rule that all patch submitters also have to
do patch reviews.
This is almost the only way to be accepted as a contributor to Fedora --
and I like it.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
devrim~gunduz.org,
Josh Berkus wrote:
Hackers,
We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing them.
At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need your
help reviewing patches! There are several easy
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need your
help reviewing patches! There are several easy patches in the list, so
I can assign them to beginners.
It would be a reasonable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I don't *want* the rule, I just think we *need* the rule because
otherwise sponsors/managers/etc make business decisions to exclude that
aspect of the software dev process.
How exactly would you even begin to enforce such a rule?
Hi,
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 09:19 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
All this would do is to deter people from submitting patches. Hard rules
like this don't work in FOSS communities. I know it's like herding cats,
but persuasion is really our only tool.
+1
I don't *want* the
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 16:03 +0200, Markus Wanner wrote:
I don't *want* the rule, I just think we *need* the rule because
otherwise sponsors/managers/etc make business decisions to exclude that
aspect of the software dev process.
I agree that making sponsors/managers/etc aware of that
On 9/4/08, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing them.
At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or
Hi,
Simon Riggs wrote:
Such as?
Dunno. Rules for sponsors? It would probably make sense to not only pay
a single developer to create and submit a patch, but instead plan for
paying others to review the code as well.
You might think those arguments exist and work, but I would say
they
On 9/5/08, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 16:03 +0200, Markus Wanner wrote:
I don't *want* the rule, I just think we *need* the rule because
otherwise sponsors/managers/etc make business decisions to exclude that
aspect of the software dev process.
I
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 17:19 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
I think this should be organised with different kinds of reviewer:
The list is correct but too verbose. And it does not attack the core
of the problem. I think the problem is not:
What can/should I do?
but instead:
Can
On 9/5/08, Marko Kreen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The list is correct but too verbose. And it does not attack the core
of the problem. I think the problem is not:
What can/should I do?
but instead:
Can I take the responsibility?
To clarify it - that was the problem I faced last
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 09:19 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need
your
help reviewing patches! There are several easy patches in the list, so
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 09:54:02PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
* coding review - does it follow standard code guidelines? Are there
portability issues? Will it work on Windows/BSD etc? Are there
sufficient comments?
* code review - does it do what it says, correctly?
Just one thing though, I
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Just one thing though, I picked a random patch and started reading.
However, the commitfest page doesn't link to anywhere that actually
describes *what* the patch is trying to do. Many patches do have the
design and the patch in one page, but some don't.
I
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
I suppose what happens is the original patch comes with design and
later a newer version is posted with just changes. The commitfest page
points to the latter, losing former in the archive somewhere.
Hmm, IMO this is a
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing them.
At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
I'll push forward on reviewing and testing Xiao's hash index
improvements for inclusion
Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll push forward on reviewing and testing Xiao's hash index
improvements for inclusion into core. Though, someone will still need
to review my stuff.
I think what the hash index patch really needs is some performance
testing. I'm willing to take
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:01:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll push forward on reviewing and testing Xiao's hash index
improvements for inclusion into core. Though, someone will still need
to review my stuff.
I think what the hash index patch
Kenneth Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:01:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I think what the hash index patch really needs is some performance
testing. I'm willing to take responsibility for the code being okay
or not, but I haven't got any production-grade hardware
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 14:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
If anyone is willing to do comparative performance testing, I'll
volunteer to make up two variant patches that do it both ways and
are otherwise equivalent.
Why not do both, set via a reloption? We can then set the default to
whichever wins
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing them.
At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need your
help reviewing
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 14:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
If anyone is willing to do comparative performance testing, I'll
volunteer to make up two variant patches that do it both ways and
are otherwise equivalent.
Why not do both, set via a reloption?
That is
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think what the hash index patch really needs is some performance
testing. I'm willing to take responsibility for the code being okay
or not, but I haven't got any production-grade hardware to do realistic
performance tests
Alex Hunsaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can happily through some hardware at this. Although
production-grade is in the eye of the beholder...
I just posted a revised patch in the pgsql-patches thread.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Please volunteer now!
Everybody is stuck in I'm not good enough to do a full review. They're
right (myself included), so that just means we're organising it wrongly.
We
33 matches
Mail list logo
