Re: [HACKERS] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: The problem is that this one doesn't have the Content-Disposition: attachment line in the MIME header. I don't know what we can do about it. It's sent with an inline attachment AFAICT, some MA will make it easy to process the attachment and some others will just make the content appear within the mail. It seems the vast majority falls into the unhelpful second category. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Alex Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com writes: Another idea: introduce some simple tag system in mails sent to -hackers to be treated specially, e.g: [...] How does that sound? Very much like what debbugs does already. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes: One unicorn I would like to have here would give the CF app a database of recent e-mails to pgsql-hackers. I login to the CF app, click on Add recent submission, and anything matching my e-mail address appears with a checkbox next to it. Click on the patch submissions, and then something like you described would happen. That would save me the annoying work around looking up message IDs so much. Another idea: introduce some simple tag system in mails sent to -hackers to be treated specially, e.g: @fest add-to-current to add new patch to the commit fest currently in progress, or @fest add-to-next to add it to the next scheduled fest. Attribute your mail with @fest comment COMMENT TEXT or @fest comment EOF ... EOF to add a (long) comment, ditto for patch and review. How does that sound? -- Alex -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On 01/19/2012 12:59 PM, Alex Shulgin wrote: Greg Smithg...@2ndquadrant.com writes: One unicorn I would like to have here would give the CF app a database of recent e-mails to pgsql-hackers. I login to the CF app, click on Add recent submission, and anything matching my e-mail address appears with a checkbox next to it. Click on the patch submissions, and then something like you described would happen. That would save me the annoying work around looking up message IDs so much. Another idea: introduce some simple tag system in mails sent to -hackers to be treated specially, e.g: @fest add-to-current to add new patch to the commit fest currently in progress, or @fest add-to-next to add it to the next scheduled fest. Attribute your mail with @fest comment COMMENT TEXT or @fest commentEOF ... EOF to add a (long) comment, ditto for patch and review. How does that sound? Like a recipe for something that requires constant fixups, to be honest. Seriously, adding something to the CF isn't *that* hard. I like Greg's idea of a list of recent emails that you could choose from. cheers andrew -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: On 01/19/2012 12:59 PM, Alex Shulgin wrote: Another idea: introduce some simple tag system in mails sent to -hackers to be treated specially, e.g: @fest add-to-current to add new patch to the commit fest currently in progress, or @fest add-to-next to add it to the next scheduled fest. Attribute your mail with @fest comment COMMENT TEXT or @fest commentEOF ... EOF to add a (long) comment, ditto for patch and review. How does that sound? Like a recipe for something that requires constant fixups, to be honest. Seriously, adding something to the CF isn't *that* hard. I like Greg's idea of a list of recent emails that you could choose from. I've just added a comment about a patch and it took me to: a. Login to commitfest app b. Locate the patch and review I was replying to c. Fetch archives thread index, refresh the index page for ~10 minutes to see my reply appear d. Copy message id and finally register comment in the commitfest app (IIRC, something close to that was already described in this thread) With the proposed approach it would only take me to include @fest comment Patch applies cleanly and possibly @fest status Needs Review to update the patch status and that'd be it. -- Alex PS: yes, I could just copy message id from the sent mail in my MUA, but I like to make sure links I post aren't broke, so still I'll need to wait until archives catches up to double check. -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Excerpts from Alex Shulgin's message of jue ene 19 15:41:54 -0300 2012: PS: yes, I could just copy message id from the sent mail in my MUA, but I like to make sure links I post aren't broke, so still I'll need to wait until archives catches up to double check. I find this a bad excuse. If you're a pgsql-hackers regular, then you already know your posts are going to show up with the correct message-id. The links might be broken for the next 10 minutes, but links that stay broken for a longer period than that should be rare. Surely you don't change your MUA once a month or anything. I know I don't waste time waiting for my posts to show up in the archives before adding links to the CF app. -- Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On 01/19/2012 01:41 PM, Alex Shulgin wrote: With the proposed approach it would only take me to include @fest comment Patch applies cleanly and possibly @fest status Needs Review to update the patch status and that'd be it. It will be easy if you get it right. My point was that it's way too easy to get it wrong. cheers andrew -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of lun ene 16 19:25:50 -0300 2012: On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: I'll also point out that the process for *applying* a patch, if you don't subscribe to hackers and keep archives around on your personal machine for months, is also very cumbersome and error-prone. Copy and paste from a web page? Really? The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo URL in addition to the official submission of changes to the list in patch form. It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments, one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently, attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already downloadable separately). -- Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 17:25 -0500, Greg Smith wrote: The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo URL in addition to the official submission of changes to the list in patch form. Note that the original complaint was that for the occasional reviewer, the current system takes at least 5 partially redundant steps in two different systems. I doubt that adding a third system and more partially redundant steps it going to help that. I don't have anything against the general idea, but it won't address the original point. -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments, one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently, attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already downloadable separately). Are you really sure about that? My recent JSON patch is at http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4f12f9e5.3090...@dunslane.net. I don't see any download link for the patch there, yet my mailer set the attachment type to text/x-patch, not text/plain. cheers andrew -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On 17/01/2012 17:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Matteo Beccati's message of mar ene 17 12:33:27 -0300 2012: My proof of concept archive for the hackers ML site is still online, in case anyone has trouble downloading the patches or just wants to have the full thread handy. I was going to ping you about this, because I tried it when I wrote this message and it got stuck waiting for response. Hmm, works for me, e.g. the recently cited message: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4f12f9e5.3090...@dunslane.net Now that we've migrated the website, it's time to get back to our conversations about migrating archives to your stuff too. How confident with Django are you? I've never wrote a line of Python in my life, so someone else should work on porting the web part, I'm afraid... Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development Consulting - http://www.beccati.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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On 17/01/2012 18:10, Matteo Beccati wrote: On 17/01/2012 17:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Matteo Beccati's message of mar ene 17 12:33:27 -0300 2012: My proof of concept archive for the hackers ML site is still online, in case anyone has trouble downloading the patches or just wants to have the full thread handy. I was going to ping you about this, because I tried it when I wrote this message and it got stuck waiting for response. Hmm, works for me, e.g. the recently cited message: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4f12f9e5.3090...@dunslane.net Erm... I meant http://archives.beccati.org/message-id/4f12f9e5.3090...@dunslane.net which redirects to: http://archives.beccati.org/pgsql-hackers/message/305925 for me. Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development Consulting - http://www.beccati.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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments, one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently, attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already downloadable separately). Are you really sure about that? My recent JSON patch is at http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4f12f9e5.3090...@dunslane.net. I don't see any download link for the patch there, yet my mailer set the attachment type to text/x-patch, not text/plain. Yeah, AFAICT the archives treat text/x-patch the same as text/plain. I tend to send stuff that way if I mean it primarily to be read in the email. If I'm thinking people will download and apply it, it's better to gzip the patch and pick a mime type appropriate to that, because that makes it much easier to pull the patch off the archives at need, at the cost that you can't just eyeball it in your mail reader. Anyway, I agree with the general tenor of this thread that it'd be nice to reduce the impedance mismatches a bit. Don't have any great ideas about specific ways to do that. 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On 01/17/2012 11:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On mån, 2012-01-16 at 17:25 -0500, Greg Smith wrote: The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo URL in addition to the official submission of changes to the list in patch form. Note that the original complaint was that for the occasional reviewer, the current system takes at least 5 partially redundant steps in two different systems. I doubt that adding a third system and more partially redundant steps it going to help that. Publishing the submission via git is an extra step for the patch submitter. If that happens, the reviewer can test just be cloning that, instead of first closing the PostgreSQL one then applying the patch. It removes the how do I fish the patch out of the archives? problem from the reviewer's side of things. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant USg...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar ene 17 14:24:05 -0300 2012: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments, one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently, attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already downloadable separately). Are you really sure about that? My recent JSON patch is at http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4f12f9e5.3090...@dunslane.net. I don't see any download link for the patch there, yet my mailer set the attachment type to text/x-patch, not text/plain. Yeah, AFAICT the archives treat text/x-patch the same as text/plain. Right, maybe it's text/* or something like that. I tend to send stuff that way if I mean it primarily to be read in the email. If I'm thinking people will download and apply it, it's better to gzip the patch and pick a mime type appropriate to that, because that makes it much easier to pull the patch off the archives at need, at the cost that you can't just eyeball it in your mail reader. Maybe we could find a way to convince Mhonarc to present links to download all mime parts separately, not only those that are undisplayable. Anyway, I agree with the general tenor of this thread that it'd be nice to reduce the impedance mismatches a bit. Don't have any great ideas about specific ways to do that. I'm hopeful that the migration to the Archivopteryx stuff by Matteo will improve things a bit. -- Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Excerpts from Matteo Beccati's message of mar ene 17 12:33:27 -0300 2012: On 16/01/2012 23:40, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of lun ene 16 19:25:50 -0300 2012: On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: I'll also point out that the process for *applying* a patch, if you don't subscribe to hackers and keep archives around on your personal machine for months, is also very cumbersome and error-prone. Copy and paste from a web page? Really? The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo URL in addition to the official submission of changes to the list in patch form. It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments, one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently, attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already downloadable separately). My proof of concept archive for the hackers ML site is still online, in case anyone has trouble downloading the patches or just wants to have the full thread handy. I was going to ping you about this, because I tried it when I wrote this message and it got stuck waiting for response. Now that we've migrated the website, it's time to get back to our conversations about migrating archives to your stuff too. How confident with Django are you? -- Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On 16/01/2012 23:40, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of lun ene 16 19:25:50 -0300 2012: On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: I'll also point out that the process for *applying* a patch, if you don't subscribe to hackers and keep archives around on your personal machine for months, is also very cumbersome and error-prone. Copy and paste from a web page? Really? The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo URL in addition to the official submission of changes to the list in patch form. It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments, one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently, attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already downloadable separately). My proof of concept archive for the hackers ML site is still online, in case anyone has trouble downloading the patches or just wants to have the full thread handy. All you need to do is to swap postgresql.org with beccati.org in the message-id link: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1320343602-sup-2...@alvh.no-ip.org - http://archives.beccati.org/message-id/1320343602-sup-2...@alvh.no-ip.org Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development Consulting - http://www.beccati.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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar ene 17 13:50:20 -0300 2012: On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments, one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently, attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already downloadable separately). Are you really sure about that? My recent JSON patch is at http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4f12f9e5.3090...@dunslane.net. I don't see any download link for the patch there, yet my mailer set the attachment type to text/x-patch, not text/plain. I tweaked the Mhonarc config and now this attachment (as well as many others) is shown as a downloadable link. Please give it a look. -- Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mar ene 17 22:23:13 -0300 2012: Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar ene 17 13:50:20 -0300 2012: On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments, one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently, attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already downloadable separately). Are you really sure about that? My recent JSON patch is at http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4f12f9e5.3090...@dunslane.net. I don't see any download link for the patch there, yet my mailer set the attachment type to text/x-patch, not text/plain. I tweaked the Mhonarc config and now this attachment (as well as many others) is shown as a downloadable link. Please give it a look. Hm, I notice it works almost every patch I've checked, except the ones from Tom such as this one: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4643.1326776...@sss.pgh.pa.us The problem is that this one doesn't have the Content-Disposition: attachment line in the MIME header. I don't know what we can do about it. -- Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 09:37, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 01/15/2012 03:17 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: And FWIW, I'd find it a lot more useful for the CF app to have the ability to post *reviews* in it, that would end up being properly threaded. Next you'll be saying we should have some sort of web application to help with the whole review process, show the work on an integrated sort of Review Board or something. What crazy talk. Well, it's early in the morning for being sunday, I blame that. My contribution toward patch review ease for this week is that peg is quite a bit smarter about referring to the correct part of the origin git repo now, when you've been working on a branch for a while then create a new one: https://github.com/gregs1104/peg Being able to refer to a git branch is one of those things that have been on the todo list for the cf app since pgcon last year... Do we have an actual written TODO list for the cf app somewhere? If not, I think creating one would be a good idea. I realize I've been remiss in addressing some of the things people want, but the lack of any centralized place where such items are collected doesn't make it simpler. -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 18:57, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 09:37, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 01/15/2012 03:17 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: And FWIW, I'd find it a lot more useful for the CF app to have the ability to post *reviews* in it, that would end up being properly threaded. Next you'll be saying we should have some sort of web application to help with the whole review process, show the work on an integrated sort of Review Board or something. What crazy talk. Well, it's early in the morning for being sunday, I blame that. My contribution toward patch review ease for this week is that peg is quite a bit smarter about referring to the correct part of the origin git repo now, when you've been working on a branch for a while then create a new one: https://github.com/gregs1104/peg Being able to refer to a git branch is one of those things that have been on the todo list for the cf app since pgcon last year... Do we have an actual written TODO list for the cf app somewhere? If not, I think creating one would be a good idea. I realize I've been remiss in addressing some of the things people want, but the lack of any centralized place where such items are collected doesn't make it simpler. I don't think so - I've been keeping mine in your mailbox ;) A simple wiki page is probably enough - going for an actual tracker or anything seems vastly overkill... -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On 1/14/12 8:44 PM, Greg Smith wrote: Second, e-mail provides some level of validation that patches being submitted are coming from the person they claim. We currently reject patches that are only shared with the community on the web, via places like github. The process around this mailing list tries to make it clear sending patches to here is a code submission under the PostgreSQL license. And e-mail nowadays keeps increasing the number of checks that confirm it's coming from the person it claims sent it. I can go check into the DKIM credentials your Gmail message to the list contained if I'd like, to help confirm it really came from your account. E-mail headers are certainly not perfectly traceable and audit-able, but they are far better than what you'd get from a web submission. Little audit trail there beyond came from this IP address. Putting submitters aside, I have to say based on teaching people how to use the CF stuff on Thursday night that the process of submitting a review of a patch is VERY unintuitive, or in the words of one reviewer astonishingly arcane. Summing up: 1. Log into CF. Claim the patch by editing it. 2. Write a review and email it to pgsql-hackers. 3. Dig the messageID out of your sent mail. 4. Add a comment to the patch, type Review with the messageID, and ideally a short summary comment of the review. 5. Edit the patch to change its status as well as to remove yourself as reviewer if you plan to do no further review. There are so many things wrong with this workflow I wouldn't know where to start. The end result, though, is that it strongly discourages the occasional reviewer by making the review process cumbersome and confusing. I'll also point out that the process for *applying* a patch, if you don't subscribe to hackers and keep archives around on your personal machine for months, is also very cumbersome and error-prone. Copy and paste from a web page? Really? Certainly we could spend the next 6 years incrementally improving the CF app in our spare time. But maybe it might be a better thing to look at the code development tools which are already available? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun ene 16 17:48:41 -0300 2012: Putting submitters aside, I have to say based on teaching people how to use the CF stuff on Thursday night that the process of submitting a review of a patch is VERY unintuitive, or in the words of one reviewer astonishingly arcane. Summing up: 1. Log into CF. Claim the patch by editing it. 2. Write a review and email it to pgsql-hackers. 3. Dig the messageID out of your sent mail. 4. Add a comment to the patch, type Review with the messageID, and ideally a short summary comment of the review. 5. Edit the patch to change its status as well as to remove yourself as reviewer if you plan to do no further review. There are so many things wrong with this workflow I wouldn't know where to start. Other than having to figure out Message-Ids, which most MUAs seem to hide as much as possible, is there anything here of substance? I mean, if getting a message-id from Gmail is all that complicated, please complain to Google. I mean, is email arcane? Surely not. Are summary lines arcane? Give me a break. So the only real complain point here is message-id, which normally people don't care about and don't even know they exist. So they have to learn about it. Let's keep in mind that pgsql-hackers email is our preferred form of communication. -- Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
I mean, is email arcane? Surely not. Are summary lines arcane? Give me a break. So the only real complain point here is message-id, which normally people don't care about and don't even know they exist. So they have to learn about it. The complaint is that the reviewer is expected to use two different and wholly incompatible methods of communication, each of which requires a separate registration, to post the review. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun ene 16 17:48:41 -0300 2012: Putting submitters aside, I have to say based on teaching people how to use the CF stuff on Thursday night that the process of submitting a review of a patch is VERY unintuitive, or in the words of one reviewer astonishingly arcane. Summing up: 1. Log into CF. Claim the patch by editing it. 2. Write a review and email it to pgsql-hackers. 3. Dig the messageID out of your sent mail. 4. Add a comment to the patch, type Review with the messageID, and ideally a short summary comment of the review. 5. Edit the patch to change its status as well as to remove yourself as reviewer if you plan to do no further review. There are so many things wrong with this workflow I wouldn't know where to start. Other than having to figure out Message-Ids, which most MUAs seem to hide as much as possible, is there anything here of substance? I find it an annoyance, but can't get too worked up over it. I mean, if getting a message-id from Gmail is all that complicated, please complain to Google. But after digging the message-id out of gmail and entering it into the commitfest app, the resulting link is broken because the email has not yet shown up in the archives. So now I have to wonder if I did something wrong, and keep coming back every few hours to see if will start working. I mean, is email arcane? Surely not. Are summary lines arcane? The way you have to set them is pretty arcane. Again, I can't get too worked over it, but if it were made simpler I'd be happier. Cheers, Jeff -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
Excerpts from Jeff Janes's message of lun ene 16 18:37:59 -0300 2012: I mean, if getting a message-id from Gmail is all that complicated, please complain to Google. But after digging the message-id out of gmail and entering it into the commitfest app, the resulting link is broken because the email has not yet shown up in the archives. So now I have to wonder if I did something wrong, and keep coming back every few hours to see if will start working. Hours? Unless a message is delayed for moderation, it should show up in archives within tem minutes. If you have problems finding emails after that period, by all means complain. Now that we've moved archives to a new host, perhaps we could rerun the archive script every two minutes instead of ten. -- Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: 3. Dig the messageID out of your sent mail. 4. Add a comment to the patch, type Review with the messageID, and ideally a short summary comment of the review. This is the time consuming part that would benefit the most from some automation. The message-id digging is an obvious sore spot, which is why I focused on improvements to eliminate so much of that first in my suggestions. The problem is that we don't actually want every message sent to the list on a thread to appear on the CF summary, and writing that short summary content is an important step. Archived messages deemed notable enough that someone linked the two are the only ones that appear in the patch history. That makes it possible to come up to speed on the most interesting history points of a patch in a reasonable period of time--even if you missed the earlier discussion. I think any of the other alternatives we might adopt would end up associating all of the e-mail history around a patch. That's the firehose, and spraying the CF app with it makes the whole thing a lot less useful. I don't think this is an unsolvable area to improve. It's been stuck behind the major postgresql.org site overhaul, which is done now. Adding some web service style APIs to probe the archives for message IDs by a) ancestor and b) author would make it possible to sand off a whole lot of rough edges here. While it's annoying in its current form, doing all my work based on message IDs has been a huge improvement over the old approach, where URLs into the archives were date based and not always permanent. I'll also point out that the process for *applying* a patch, if you don't subscribe to hackers and keep archives around on your personal machine for months, is also very cumbersome and error-prone. Copy and paste from a web page? Really? The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo URL in addition to the official submission of changes to the list in patch form. And momentum toward doing that just keeps going up, even among longer term contributors who weren't git advocates at all a year during the transition. I nudged Simon that way and he's pushing branches for major patches but not small ones yet, it looks like Andrew fully embraced bitbucket recently, etc. We're 16 months into git adoption. I'm pretty happy with how well that's going. We don't need to add infrastructure to enable people to push code to github and link to their branch comparison repo viewer as a way to view the patch; that's already available to anyone who wants is. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant USg...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On 01/16/2012 05:25 PM, Greg Smith wrote: The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo URL in addition to the official submission of changes to the list in patch form. And momentum toward doing that just keeps going up, even among longer term contributors who weren't git advocates at all a year during the transition. I nudged Simon that way and he's pushing branches for major patches but not small ones yet, it looks like Andrew fully embraced bitbucket recently, etc. If we're going to do that, the refspec to be pulled needs to be a tag, I think, not just a branch, and people would have to get into the habit of tagging commits and explicitly pushing tags. I probably should be doing that, and it is now built into the buildfarm client release mechanism, but I usually don't when just publishing dev work. Guess I need to start. I'll probably use tag names like branch-MMDDHHMM. I certainly like the idea of just being able to pull in a tag from a remote instead of applying a patch. (BTW, I use both bitbucket and github. They both have advantages.) cheers andrew -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 05:44, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 01/14/2012 10:49 PM, Gurjeet Singh wrote: So lets make it easy for the patch submitter to start the process. I propose that we have a page in the CF application where people can upload/attach the patch, and the app posts the patch to -hackers and uses the post URL to create the CF entry. That would be nice, but there's at least two serious problems with it, which I would guess are both unsolvable without adding an unsupportable amount of work to the current PostgreSQL web team. First, it is technically risky for a web application hosted on postgresql.org to be e-mailing this list. There are some things in the infrastructure that do that already--I believe the pgsql-commiters list being driven from commits is the busiest such bot. But all of the ones that currently exist are either moderated, have a limited number of approved submitters, or both. It's not really a problem from that perspective, as long as it requires the user to be logged in. The mail would be sent from the users account, with that one as a sender, and thus be exposed to the same moderation rules as the rest of the list posts. If it were possible for a bot to create a postgresql.org community account, then trigger an e-mail to pgsql-hackers just by filling out a web form, I'd give it maybe six months before it has to be turned off for a bit--because there are thousands messages queued up once the first bored spammer figures Said bot can already use the bug report form *without* having to sign up for an account. Or said bot could submit news or events, which trigger an email to at least some lists, which hasn't bene done. It's supposedly not easy for a bot to sign up for a community account, since it requires you to have access to the email address it's registered on. If that doesn't work, it's a bug and needs to be fixed regardless. that out. Securing web to e-mail gateways is a giant headache, and everyone working on the PostgreSQL infrastructure who might work on that is already overloaded with community volunteer work. There's an element of zero-sum We've already solved that problem for other situtations, and given how the infrastructure is built, that's fairly easy to replicate to another node. I think the bigger problem is who'll write it. AFAIK, the CF app *itself* is even more person- and time-constrained to senior developers (Robert Haas only) than the infrastructure, and that's a bigger problem. There are already a bunch of things that are a lot simpler than this that has been pending on that one for well over half a year. Second, e-mail provides some level of validation that patches being submitted are coming from the person they claim. We currently reject patches that are only shared with the community on the web, via places like github. The process around this mailing list tries to make it clear sending patches to here is a code submission under the PostgreSQL license. And e-mail nowadays keeps increasing the number of checks that confirm it's coming from the person it claims sent it. I can go check into the DKIM credentials your Gmail message to the list contained if I'd like, to help confirm it really came from your account. E-mail headers are certainly not I think DKIM was a bad example, because AFAIK our lists mangle DKIM and thus actually show them as *invalid* for at least the majority of messages... One unicorn I would like to have here would give the CF app a database of recent e-mails to pgsql-hackers. I login to the CF app, click on Add recent submission, and anything matching my e-mail address appears with a checkbox next to it. Click on the patch submissions, and then something like you described would happen. That would save me the annoying work around looking up message IDs so much. That would be neat. And FWIW, I'd find it a lot more useful for the CF app to have the ability to post *reviews* in it, that would end up being properly threaded. The way it is now, half the reviewers create a *new* thread to post their reviews on, making it a PITA to keep track of those patches on the list at all, which somewhat takes away the whole idea of mail being the primary way to track it. Not saying it's critical, but I'd put it a lot higher on the list than being able to post the initial patch. -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On 01/15/2012 03:17 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: And FWIW, I'd find it a lot more useful for the CF app to have the ability to post *reviews* in it, that would end up being properly threaded. Next you'll be saying we should have some sort of web application to help with the whole review process, show the work on an integrated sort of Review Board or something. What crazy talk. My contribution toward patch review ease for this week is that peg is quite a bit smarter about referring to the correct part of the origin git repo now, when you've been working on a branch for a while then create a new one: https://github.com/gregs1104/peg Last week's was that I confirmed that on a Mac using Homebrew for package management, after brew install postgresql to get the dependencies in, you can then use peg to setup a PostgreSQL in your home directory for patch testing or development. Works fine out of the box, you just won't have things like all the PLs installed. Yes, I am aware I'm going at this bottom-up. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant USg...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 09:37, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 01/15/2012 03:17 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: And FWIW, I'd find it a lot more useful for the CF app to have the ability to post *reviews* in it, that would end up being properly threaded. Next you'll be saying we should have some sort of web application to help with the whole review process, show the work on an integrated sort of Review Board or something. What crazy talk. Well, it's early in the morning for being sunday, I blame that. My contribution toward patch review ease for this week is that peg is quite a bit smarter about referring to the correct part of the origin git repo now, when you've been working on a branch for a while then create a new one: https://github.com/gregs1104/peg Being able to refer to a git branch is one of those things that have been on the todo list for the cf app since pgcon last year... -- 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] automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)
On 01/14/2012 10:49 PM, Gurjeet Singh wrote: So lets make it easy for the patch submitter to start the process. I propose that we have a page in the CF application where people can upload/attach the patch, and the app posts the patch to -hackers and uses the post URL to create the CF entry. That would be nice, but there's at least two serious problems with it, which I would guess are both unsolvable without adding an unsupportable amount of work to the current PostgreSQL web team. First, it is technically risky for a web application hosted on postgresql.org to be e-mailing this list. There are some things in the infrastructure that do that already--I believe the pgsql-commiters list being driven from commits is the busiest such bot. But all of the ones that currently exist are either moderated, have a limited number of approved submitters, or both. If it were possible for a bot to create a postgresql.org community account, then trigger an e-mail to pgsql-hackers just by filling out a web form, I'd give it maybe six months before it has to be turned off for a bit--because there are thousands messages queued up once the first bored spammer figures that out. Securing web to e-mail gateways is a giant headache, and everyone working on the PostgreSQL infrastructure who might work on that is already overloaded with community volunteer work. There's an element of zero-sum game here: while this would provide some assistance to new contributors, the time to build and maintain the thing would be coming mainly out of senior contributors. I see the gain+risk vs. reward here skewed the wrong way. Second, e-mail provides some level of validation that patches being submitted are coming from the person they claim. We currently reject patches that are only shared with the community on the web, via places like github. The process around this mailing list tries to make it clear sending patches to here is a code submission under the PostgreSQL license. And e-mail nowadays keeps increasing the number of checks that confirm it's coming from the person it claims sent it. I can go check into the DKIM credentials your Gmail message to the list contained if I'd like, to help confirm it really came from your account. E-mail headers are certainly not perfectly traceable and audit-able, but they are far better than what you'd get from a web submission. Little audit trail there beyond came from this IP address. One unicorn I would like to have here would give the CF app a database of recent e-mails to pgsql-hackers. I login to the CF app, click on Add recent submission, and anything matching my e-mail address appears with a checkbox next to it. Click on the patch submissions, and then something like you described would happen. That would save me the annoying work around looking up message IDs so much. The role CF manager would benefit even more from infrastructure like that too. Something that listed all the recent e-mail messages for an existing submission, such that you could just click on the ones that you wanted added to the patch's e-mail history, would save me personally enough time that I could probably even justify writing it. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant USg...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
