Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 1/22/16 12:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2016-01-22 08:40:28 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: Ideally reviewers shouldn't be doing any testing, because the tests that are part of the patch should answer every question they would have, but I don't see that happening until we have a separate automation

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-01-26 00:26:18 -0600, Joshua Berkus wrote: > > > The alternative to this is an aggressive recruitment and mentorship > > program to create more major contributors who can do deep review of > > patches. But that doesn't seem to have h

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 26.01.2016 02:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 1/25/16 2:48 AM, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote: Nobody, but there are different solutions. And the same solutions works different in quality and quantity in the different projects. In FreeBSD for example there is an online tool for review (http://review

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Hi, On 2016-01-26 00:26:18 -0600, Joshua Berkus wrote: > Let's do quarterly development releases and supported production > releases every 18 months. > A 3-month release cycle would let people see their code go into the wild a > lot faster; basically we'd do a CF then a development release. The

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

All, So the proximate cause of late releases are the following: 1. patches are getting kicked down the road from one CF to another, creating a big pileup in the final CF. This is exactly like the huge pile of unreviewed patches we used to have before the CF system. 2. Once the last CF is clos

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 01/26/2016 02:09 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/25/16 2:48 AM, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote: >> In FreeBSD for example there is an online tool for review >> (http://review.freebsd.org) which was opened to public. There you can >> review any code, left comments in the parts you wanted, submit d

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 1/25/16 2:48 AM, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote: > Nobody, but there are different solutions. And the same solutions works > different in quality and quantity in the different projects. > In FreeBSD for example there is an online tool for review > (http://review.freebsd.org) which was opened to public

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > This signal is common, particularly for smaller patches, and it ought to > remain common. The product would advance slowly if every contrib module or > vacuumdb flag took full attention from two committers. Every release has a > few patches th

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > It has one important effect of current interest: establishing the truth that > multiple people and multiple companies are involved in producing and > maintaining PostgreSQL. Whether the names are properly attributed will > always be a time-cons

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:59:59PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I think that we've learned some lessons from the problems with 9.3. I > don't think that one of those lessons was "take more time to release". > There is reason to doubt that that would have changed matters one bit > with 9.3. It mi

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 20.01.2016 22:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 1/20/16 1:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: And, you know, I did my time fighting major wars to try to compress the release schedule, and honestly, it wasn't that much fun. The process we have now is imperfect in many ways, but I no longer have abuse heap

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-01-22 08:50:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: >> I think that's a great way to ensure we shrink the pool of reviewers when >> someone works on a patch and then it goes nowhere. > > True, it really sucks. But what's your counter proposal? Com

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 22 January 2016 at 16:34, Robert Haas wrote: > > >> For my part, I am not sure the names in the release notes are actually >> all that helpful. > > > It has one important effect of current interest: establishing the truth > that multiple

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 22 January 2016 at 05:07, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 06:58:24PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > > The main problem is the length of the integration phase, which is mostly > > where nothing happens. > > The open items wiki page saw steady change from 30 April to 28 December[1]; > t

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-01-22 08:18:45 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > > Personally, I don't see why we have our scarcest resource doing what is > > essentially a project management task, especially when at least one > > commercial company has offered to donate p

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-22 08:50:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > I think that's a great way to ensure we shrink the pool of reviewers when > someone works on a patch and then it goes nowhere. True, it really sucks. But what's your counter proposal? Commitfests dragging on forever, and people burning out on contin

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-22 08:18:45 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > Personally, I don't see why we have our scarcest resource doing what is > essentially a project management task, especially when at least one > commercial company has offered to donate paid staff time. Because so far all CFs that weren't managed by

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 22 January 2016 at 16:34, Robert Haas wrote: > For my part, I am not sure the names in the release notes are actually > all that helpful. It has one important effect of current interest: establishing the truth that multiple people and multiple companies are involved in producing and maintai

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-22 08:40:28 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > Ideally reviewers shouldn't be doing any testing, because the tests > that are part of the patch should answer every question they would > have, but I don't see that happening until we have a separate > automation-only target that we don't care how l

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 1/20/16 4:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 09:12:07AM -0800, Joshua Drake wrote: I just don't buy the Ubuntu release model for our database. Ubuntu is trying to balance hot features vs stability, while we are really focused on stability, similar to Debian. I understand b

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 1/20/16 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Yeah. It's certainly unfair if someone's patch doesn't get reviewed, but there are only 24 hours in a day, and we have a limited pool of reviewer and committer manpower. I think we just have to say that sometimes life is unfair. I think that's a great way

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 1/20/16 11:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Michael Paquier writes: On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: What benefit does porting sqlsmith for inclusion in core have? I can only think of costs, including those that you mentioned. We have automatic buildfarm coverage on many pl

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 1/21/16 2:29 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: I also think there should be some way to give credit to CFM, if it is difficult to do anything related to money, then we can enforce that if CFM submits any patches for next CF, then those should be prioritised. Personally, I don't see why we have our scar

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> If we were to expand that to >> cover reviewers, we would then be overburdinging that system and we >> would probably end up removing all names from the release notes. > > To me, this reads just as a threat that "if you disturb the waters

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Bruce Momjian wrote: > FYI, the fact that feature authors appear in the release notes is an > artifact of how we track who wrote which stuff, and is not designed for > rewarding, though it has that effect. I think you can claim this all you want, but I'd be surprised if anyone actually believed i

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Perhaps some people are more interested in implementing new >> features than working on bugs and would just continue hacking and >> arguing about new features, at least a stabil

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 06:58:24PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > The main problem is the length of the integration phase, which is mostly > where nothing happens. The open items wiki page saw steady change from 30 April to 28 December[1]; the two longest quiet periods were an eleven-day gap from 21

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:40:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I think it might also be a good idea if we could somehow distinguish > "nobody had time for that yet" from "nobody is interested", with an eye > to flat-out rejecting patches that no one cares enough about to review. > Maybe we could reduc

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Many people where happy with our consistent releasing major releases in > September, e.g. 9.0 to 9.3: > > Not sure why the commitfest process should be synchronized with the release process. What if, when the release date comes, the currentl

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:55:07AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Andres Freun

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Michael Paquier writes: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> What benefit does porting sqlsmith for inclusion in core have? I can >> only think of costs, including those that you mentioned. > We have automatic buildfarm coverage on many platforms. Perhaps we > could live

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > We have automatic buildfarm coverage on many platforms. Perhaps we > could live without that with a buildfarm module though. It's not clear that buildfarm coverage makes sense for sqlsmith. If it does make sense, I see no reason why introd

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Another tool that we had better IMO put some efforts in porting >> into core is sqlsmith, which would actually be a complete rewrite >> because the upstream code is under GPL lic

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Another tool that we had better IMO put some efforts in porting > into core is sqlsmith, which would actually be a complete rewrite > because the upstream code is under GPL license and depends on libpqxx. Then Andreas Seltenreich better ge

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Perhaps some people are more interested in implementing new > features than working on bugs and would just continue hacking and > arguing about new features, at least a stability period may attract > more committer attention into actual bug

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:55:07AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> > I think this has very little to do with commitfest sch

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:55:07AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > I think this has very little to do with commitfest schedules, and much >> > more with the "early" forking of the new

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> As a concrete example, I recall that Heikki or someone had a tool for >> checking WAL replay by comparing master and slave disk contents. We >> should make an effort to get that into a s

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I think a lesson we *should* have learned by now is that we need to put > more emphasis on testing. That includes not only spending more time on > it, but investing more in testing infrastructure. The buildfarm has been > a huge advance in our a

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > They were both cases where we were surprised and where hasty action did > or could have caused big problems. IMV MulitXacts were not a special case because of how many bugs there were in 9.3.0. Rather, they were a special case because, to th

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:05:19AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-01-20 18:02:20 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > The two sobering blockers I can remember were multi-xact (9.3) and JSONB > > compression (9.4). > > I don't see how those compare. The multixact stuff was all discovered a > fair

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-20 18:02:20 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > The two sobering blockers I can remember were multi-xact (9.3) and JSONB > compression (9.4). I don't see how those compare. The multixact stuff was all discovered a fair bit after the release, the compression stuff pre release. -- Sent via p

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 05:56:27PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:59:59PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> I think that we've learned some lessons from the problems with 9.3. I > >> don't think that one of those lessons was "take more time to releas

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Bruce Momjian writes: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:59:59PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> I think that we've learned some lessons from the problems with 9.3. I >> don't think that one of those lessons was "take more time to release". >

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 06:31:58PM +0100, Joel Jacobson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > I think one thing we should work on, is being absolutely religious about > > requiring, say, 2 reviews for every nontrivial contribution. We > > currently seem to have a sign

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 07:48:07PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > If that is the case, then its too late to change. > > March - last CF > April - integration > May - release Beta > Sept - release Prod > > It seems perfectly OK for me to have Beta start at beginning May and for us to > release in Sep

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:59:59PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > My feeble attempts at alleviating this problem a bit are adding more > > testing and removing outdated functionality, but both of those are also > > incredibly abuse-prone activities. > > I think that we've learned some lessons f

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 09:12:07AM -0800, Joshua Drake wrote: > >I just don't buy the Ubuntu release model for our database. Ubuntu is > >trying to balance hot features vs stability, while we are really focused > >on stability, similar to Debian. > > I understand but I think we are missing out on

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Yeah, a lot of the ideas in this thread, while reasonable, are of the > sort "We need to be better about ..." which sounds a lot like "I need to > be better about exercising". A system based purely on distributed > willpower isn't going t

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Here's one area where the commitfest app could help the CFM. I would > > like to have a report that shows, for each person, the list of patches > > where they are author, and the list of patches where they are

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 1/20/16 1:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > And, you know, I did my time fighting major wars to try to compress > the release schedule, and honestly, it wasn't that much fun. The > process we have now is imperfect in many ways, but I no longer have > abuse heaped on me for wanting to boot a patch out

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > 4. Submit a patch, review a patch. > > > > Don't review patches? Don't submit patches. > > Here's one area where the commitfest app could help the CFM. I would > like to have a report that shows, for each perso

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 20 January 2016 at 20:29, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/20/2016 10:53 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> On 20 January 2016 at 15:40, Bruce Momjian > > wrote: >> >> Many people where happy with our consistent releasing major releases >> in >> September, e.g. 9.0 to 9

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 01/20/2016 10:53 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 20 January 2016 at 15:40, Bruce Momjian mailto:br...@momjian.us>> wrote: Many people where happy with our consistent releasing major releases in September, e.g. 9.0 to 9.3: What is the point in having a special mailing list to discuss the r

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 21/01/16 06:40, Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander writes: That's pretty much what I suggested :) Except that we need to do it for the last one as well. With the only exception that the last one might be a bit longer. But the fact is that the recent of CFs *and* releases, we've taken the approa

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 20 January 2016 at 19:45, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes: > >> On 2016-01-20 18:53:54 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > >>> What is the point in having a special mailing list to discuss the > release > >>> schedule

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 20 January 2016 at 15:40, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Many people were happy with our consistent releasing major releases in > September, e.g. 9.0 to 9.3: > > 9.5 2016-01-07 > 9.4 2014-12-18 > 9.3 2013-09-09 <-- > 9.2 2012-09-10 <-- > 9.1 2011-09-12

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes: >> On 2016-01-20 18:53:54 +, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> What is the point in having a special mailing list to discuss the release >>> schedule plus a face-to-face dev meeting to discuss this if we are goi

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > That list exists to discuss concrete releases, and is separate so we > e.g. can mention there's security issues and such. This topic in > contrast quite validly merits input from more then the usual suspects > going to a developer meeting.

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes: > On 2016-01-20 18:53:54 +, Simon Riggs wrote: >> What is the point in having a special mailing list to discuss the release >> schedule plus a face-to-face dev meeting to discuss this if we are going to >> discuss it here? > That list exists to discus

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-20 18:53:54 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > What is the point in having a special mailing list to discuss the release > schedule plus a face-to-face dev meeting to discuss this if we are going to > discuss it here? That list exists to discuss concrete releases, and is separate so we e.g. ca

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 20 January 2016 at 17:03, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > But I'm not very sure that we're talking about the same set of people > > here. If we're going to go to a system where nobody's allowed to > > commit anything for the next release until the current release is > > finalized,

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 20 January 2016 at 16:29, Andres Freund wrote: > I think one thing we should work on, is being absolutely religious about > requiring, say, 2 reviews for every nontrivial contribution. We > currently seem to have a significantly increased submission rate, and at > the same time the number of

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 20 January 2016 at 15:55, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Andres Freund > wrote: > > On 2016-01-20 10:40:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> We have gotten off of that cycle in the last two major releases, and > >> this isn't going to improve as long as we have commitfe

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 20 January 2016 at 15:40, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Many people where happy with our consistent releasing major releases in > September, e.g. 9.0 to 9.3: > What is the point in having a special mailing list to discuss the release schedule plus a face-to-face dev meeting to discuss this if we are

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-01-20 13:13:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> (3) Andres's multixact reworks landed quite late and IMHO were not >> safe enough to back-patch, yet they needed to be in the release. In >> my view, the last major fix for > > At least in

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-20 13:13:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > (3) Andres's multixact reworks landed quite late and IMHO were not > safe enough to back-patch, yet they needed to be in the release. In > my view, the last major fix for At least in that case I was, for a long while, basically hoping for more in

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-20 13:03:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I am not sure what exactly ought to be different about them [small > patches], but probably something should. I think for small patches, > we are using the CF app mostly to be sure things don't fall through > the cracks, but maybe we don't need the w

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> But I'm not very sure that we're talking about the same set of people >> here. If we're going to go to a system where nobody's allowed to >> commit anything for the next release until the current release is >> finalized,

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-01-20 09:48:24 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote: >> There will always be patches desirable-enough that they will be reviewed >> whether or not the submitter reviewed other patches. > I think that's actually getting less and less true. By now the really > desirable-en

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-20 19:00:05 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > And you want the actual patches, and not just a count? I think the actual patches makes sense, because reviewing one 200KB patch obviously is something different than reviewing 3 onelinesrs. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hac

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Jan 20, 2016 18:57, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote: > > Here's one area where the commitfest app could help the CFM. I would > > like to have a report that shows, for each person, the list of patches > > where they are author, and the list of patches where they are reviewer.

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Jan 20, 2016 18:57, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > 4. Submit a patch, review a patch. > > > > Don't review patches? Don't submit patches. > > Here's one area where the commitfest app could help the CFM. I would > like to have a report that shows, for each person, the

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > 4. Submit a patch, review a patch. > > Don't review patches? Don't submit patches. Here's one area where the commitfest app could help the CFM. I would like to have a report that shows, for each person, the list of patches where they are author, and the list of patches

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 01/20/2016 09:48 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Jan 20, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: 4. Submit a patch, review a patch. Don't review patches? Don't submit patches. There will always be patches desirable-enough that they will be reviewed whether or not the submitter reviewed

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-20 09:48:24 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote: > There will always be patches desirable-enough that they will be reviewed > whether or not the submitter reviewed other patches. I think that's actually getting less and less true. By now the really desirable-enough features imply so much wor

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Magnus Hagander wrote: > Except that we need to do it for the last one as well. With the only > exception that the last one might be a bit longer. But the fact is that the > recent of CFs *and* releases, we've taken the approach of closing the CF > when everything in it is done or explicitly revie

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Jan 20, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > 4. Submit a patch, review a patch. > > Don't review patches? Don't submit patches. There will always be patches desirable-enough that they will be reviewed whether or not the submitter reviewed other patches. And there will often be patche

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-20 09:42:28 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Don't review patches? Don't submit patches. Absolutely. While I think encouraging reviewers is a good thing, it seems independent of requiring contributors to do quid-pro-quo reviews. There'll always be people too busy or uninterested in revie

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 01/20/2016 09:31 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote: On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: I think one thing we should work on, is being absolutely religious about requiring, say, 2 reviews for every nontrivial contribution. We currently seem to have a significantly increased submissio

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Magnus Hagander writes: > That's pretty much what I suggested :) > Except that we need to do it for the last one as well. With the only > exception that the last one might be a bit longer. But the fact is that the > recent of CFs *and* releases, we've taken the approach of closing the CF > when e

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I think one thing we should work on, is being absolutely religious about > requiring, say, 2 reviews for every nontrivial contribution. We > currently seem to have a significantly increased submission rate, and at > the same time the number

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

> I admit, I may have grabbed your comment out of an unrelated portion > of the thread. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. -- 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] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I do not think commitfest length is the problem (though surely it's not > >> working as intended). What happened with 9.5 is we forked the 9.6 > > > I agree that

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-20 12:18:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not really sure why we've allowed CFs to drift on, though. Can't we > just arbitrarily decree them closed on the last day of the month? And > push unfinished work to the next one? Admittedly, this probably doesn't > work for the last CF of a re

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 01/20/2016 09:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2016-01-20 09:15:01 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 01/20/2016 09:03 AM, Andres Freund wrote: If people don't fix the issues in time, there needs to be direct pushback, leading to much less stuff getting in next time round. We have been slowly

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I do not think commitfest length is the problem (though surely it's not >> working as intended). What happened with 9.5 is we forked the 9.6 > I agree that it's not the same problem. I do believe that it is *a* proble

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-20 09:15:01 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/20/2016 09:03 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >If people don't fix the issues in time, there needs to be > >direct pushback, leading to much less stuff getting in next time round. > > > > We have been slowly moving to a more dictator based re

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 01/20/2016 09:03 AM, Andres Freund wrote: If people don't fix the issues in time, there needs to be direct pushback, leading to much less stuff getting in next time round. We have been slowly moving to a more dictator based release anyway. It used to be that we released "when it's done", t

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Jan 20, 2016 5:03 PM, "Andres Freund" wrote: > >> FWIW, looking at the last few commitfests, aside heroic and > >> unsustainable efforts by individual CF managers, I haven't noticed any > >> effect of when fests s

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 01/20/2016 08:51 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 07:53:25AM -0800, Joshua Drake wrote: #2 This is a longer topic. I have been stewing in my head about releases for years. I have even brought up the idea of an Ubuntu style release cycle on list once or twice. The more I think

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Robert Haas writes: > But I'm not very sure that we're talking about the same set of people > here. If we're going to go to a system where nobody's allowed to > commit anything for the next release until the current release is > finalized, then we'd better have some procedure for making sure that

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-20 11:53:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > But I'm not very sure that we're talking about the same set of people > here. If we're going to go to a system where nobody's allowed to > commit anything for the next release until the current release is > finalized, then we'd better have some pr

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:53:32AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I do not think commitfest length is the problem (though surely it's not > > working as intended). What happened with 9.5 is we forked the 9.6 > > development branch on June 30th, w

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I do not think commitfest length is the problem (though surely it's not > working as intended). What happened with 9.5 is we forked the 9.6 > development branch on June 30th, with the expectation of releasing in > September, and then couldn't re

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 07:53:25AM -0800, Joshua Drake wrote: > #2 This is a longer topic. I have been stewing in my head about > releases for years. I have even brought up the idea of an Ubuntu > style release cycle on list once or twice. The more I think about > it, the more I think this can help

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-20 11:19:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > We will not get back to on-schedule releases unless we can keep -hackers > working on release testing/stabilization when it's time to do that, > rather than being distracted by shiny new stuff going into the next > release. Agreed. I'll note that the

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Jan 20, 2016 5:03 PM, "Andres Freund" wrote: >> FWIW, looking at the last few commitfests, aside heroic and >> unsustainable efforts by individual CF managers, I haven't noticed any >> effect of when fests started/stopped. Aside from a short time increase >> in unfini

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On Jan 20, 2016 5:03 PM, "Andres Freund" wrote: > > On 2016-01-20 10:55:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > It's certainly true that we twiddled our thumbs quite a bit about > > getting 9.5 ready to ship. However, the old process where nobody > > could get anything committed for six months out of th

Re: [HACKERS] Releasing in September

On 2016-01-20 10:55:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > It's certainly true that we twiddled our thumbs quite a bit about > getting 9.5 ready to ship. However, the old process where nobody > could get anything committed for six months out of the year blew > chunks, too. Personally, I think that the so

  1   2   >