Re: [HACKERS] Patch process?
Dave Page wrote: You should post into -patches@ list, then some core member will review and apply it. Not core, a committer. Although some people are both, not all are. If that makes sense! I have raised this issue before: I don't believe committers are identified as such on the web site, and they (we) probably should be. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Patch process?
Tom Lane wrote: Joshua Reich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Do we have an active maintainer of this code? It sounds like you've just acquired that position ;-) More than happy to take the role. How is it reviewed? Same as everything else, pretty much: patches go to pgsql-patches and are (supposed to be) reviewed before being committed. If it's in the nature of a new feature rather than a simple bug fix or code cleanup, you might want to first start a discussion on pgsql-hackers --- if anyone has a better idea about how to do things, it's better to find it out before you start coding instead of after you finish. Ok. I'll keep changes to a minimum; before I add features, I'll discuss here. Because we're relying so heavily on the buildfarm these days, failing regression tests are quite unacceptable. Adding an ORDER BY might be the best solution, or maybe you should just change the expected output --- do you understand exactly why the results changed? As for adding more tests, you can within reason --- don't make the running time enormous. Ok. I'll fix the test cases so that everything is hunky dory. Josh ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Patch process?
On 7/19/06, Dave Page wrote: > You should post into -patches@ list, then some core member will > review and apply it. Not core, a committer. Although some people are both, not all are. If that makes sense! Indeed. Obviously, non-committers can (and do) review patches. Just you need to get the attention of at least one committer to get it into CVS. -- marko ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] Patch process?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marko Kreen > Sent: 19 July 2006 16:13 > To: Joshua Reich > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch process? > > On 7/19/06, Joshua Reich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just a general question - I submitted a patch for > contrib/cube (adding a > > new function & converting everything from V0 to V1), what > is the process > > from here onwards? Do we have an active maintainer of this > code? How is > > it reviewed? > > You should post into -patches@ list, then some core member will > review and apply it. Not core, a committer. Although some people are both, not all are. If that makes sense! Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] Patch process?
Joshua Reich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Just a general question - I submitted a patch for contrib/cube (adding a > new function & converting everything from V0 to V1), what is the process > from here onwards? Do we have an active maintainer of this code? It sounds like you've just acquired that position ;-) > How is it reviewed? Same as everything else, pretty much: patches go to pgsql-patches and are (supposed to be) reviewed before being committed. If it's in the nature of a new feature rather than a simple bug fix or code cleanup, you might want to first start a discussion on pgsql-hackers --- if anyone has a better idea about how to do things, it's better to find it out before you start coding instead of after you finish. > I noticed that one of the regression tests now fail, as the original > regression test expects a certain ordering from a query that doesn't > request ordered results. Should I fix the test case so that ordering > will be assured? Should I add test cases for most of the functions that > currently aren't being tested? Because we're relying so heavily on the buildfarm these days, failing regression tests are quite unacceptable. Adding an ORDER BY might be the best solution, or maybe you should just change the expected output --- do you understand exactly why the results changed? As for adding more tests, you can within reason --- don't make the running time enormous. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] Patch process?
On 7/19/06, Joshua Reich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just a general question - I submitted a patch for contrib/cube (adding a new function & converting everything from V0 to V1), what is the process from here onwards? Do we have an active maintainer of this code? How is it reviewed? You should post into -patches@ list, then some core member will review and apply it. The review may take some time, you should not worry about that. I see that you already got general ACK. I would like to continue working on the cube stuff, as our company uses it heavily and has developed a core library of functions that we use regularly. I would love to be able to add these back to the Postgres project, but I'm not sure about what the guidelines are for contrib. I have noticed comments elsewhere about contrib packages being removed because they didn't follow guidelines, so I don't want to fall foul of that line, but I am not sure where the line is. The line mostly depends on quetions 'Is it useful?' and 'Is it active?' As you mentioned, it is useful and if you will fix problems then its also active. Seeing cvs log of the module, you could consider becoming the maintainer. I noticed that one of the regression tests now fail, as the original regression test expects a certain ordering from a query that doesn't request ordered results. Should I fix the test case so that ordering will be assured? Should I add test cases for most of the functions that currently aren't being tested? Sure, as a maintainer, you should fix all problems :) -- marko ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
[HACKERS] Patch process?
Just a general question - I submitted a patch for contrib/cube (adding a new function & converting everything from V0 to V1), what is the process from here onwards? Do we have an active maintainer of this code? How is it reviewed? I would like to continue working on the cube stuff, as our company uses it heavily and has developed a core library of functions that we use regularly. I would love to be able to add these back to the Postgres project, but I'm not sure about what the guidelines are for contrib. I have noticed comments elsewhere about contrib packages being removed because they didn't follow guidelines, so I don't want to fall foul of that line, but I am not sure where the line is. I noticed that one of the regression tests now fail, as the original regression test expects a certain ordering from a query that doesn't request ordered results. Should I fix the test case so that ordering will be assured? Should I add test cases for most of the functions that currently aren't being tested? Thanks, Josh Reich ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
