-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:33:02 +0000 "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not clear how this commitfest thing is supposed to work in > practice. May I suggest that: > > 1. When a patch author wants to have a patch reviewed in the next > commitfest, he posts it to pgsql-patches as usual, and then adds it > to the list on the Todo:PatchStatus page (or perhaps even better, a > new page per commitfest with same layout) in the wiki himself, with > status "awaiting review". > This is a general workflow issue. You are asking patch submitters to do double work, (exactly what a tracker should be doing but I digress). We need to have a single point of entry. At this point I think the patch list is defunct. Have a patch category on the wiki. Each patch is a page. Each revision of the patch is uploaded to the page that is assigned to the patch. > 2. When a patch is outright rejected, the patch author updates the > status accordingly. I don't find this realistic. I believe we will just end up trolling back through patch archives trying to remember what the status was. > > 3. Many patches will not be ready for committing yet, because there's > bugs that need fixing, or it needs performance testing or whatever. > If it's a quick thing, patch author can just submit an updated patch, > or test results or whatever and continue discussion. Otherwise, after > author knows what he's going to do next, he updates the status on the > wiki accordingly. The status can be something like "will do > performance testing", "will try approach suggested by X", "will clean > up comments" etc. I assume this happens "After" discussion on -hackers? > > 4. The commitfest is over when there is no more tasks on the wiki > page with status "awaiting review". Nod. > > The trick here is that the patch authors drive the process. An author Yes and I believe it is a trick that is destined to bomb at the magic show. We can't convince hackers to follow standard bug tracker policies but we are going to convince them to keep a mailing list + wiki up to date? Please don't misunderstand I certainly thinking working about the kinks of the commit fest are important. It is new to us but I don't think adding multiple points of entry and multiple documentation paths is going to help. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH0YX3ATb/zqfZUUQRAgD4AJsFGgnuaVKbLe89xvdfzXm0AuuZRwCdFswJ qm1cLFj8GySWaMNbco+Ydts= =cj5Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
