Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 20/12/14 11:22, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 12/19/2014 12:28 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: To me that's a bit over the top stereotyping. +1 Having been mentioned one or two times myself - it was an unexpected "wow - cool" rather than a grumpy/fragile "I must be noticed" thing. I think some fol

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 2014-12-19 22:17:54 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > git does allow you to revise a commit message; it just makes > downstream pulls uglier if the commit was already pushed (see > https://help.github.com/articles/changing-a-commit-message/). It might > be possible to minimize or even eliminate that pai

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/19/14, 6:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Could we establish an expectation that whoever sets a CF entry to "ready for committer" is responsible for reviewing the authors/reviewers lists and making sure that those fairly represent who should get credit? That would divide the labor a bit, and there w

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

Josh Berkus writes: > On 12/18/2014 05:36 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> I do agree that we need to give credit in some form, though. I'm just >>> saying can we please not put the responsibility on committers. >> Ugh, yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to have to work out some complex >> set of rules

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/18/2014 05:36 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > I tend to agree that we want to avoid complicated rules. The corollary > to that is the concern Andrew raised about my earlier off-the-cuff > proposal- how do we avoid debasing the value of being recognized as a PG > contributor? I find that less of

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/19/2014 12:28 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: To me that's a bit over the top stereotyping. +1 Having been mentioned one or two times myself - it was an unexpected "wow - cool" rather than a grumpy/fragile "I must be noticed" thing. I think some folk have forgotten the underlying principle o

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 02:00:18PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Another thought I had was to suggest we consider *everyone* to be a > contributor and implement a way to tie together the mailing list > archives with the commit history and perhaps the commitfest app and make > it searchable and inde

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Mark Kirkwood < mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz> wrote: > On 19/12/14 20:48, Andres Freund wrote: > >> On 2014-12-18 10:02:25 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>> I think a lot of hackers forget exactly how tender their egos are. Now I >>> say >>> this knowing that a

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 19/12/14 20:48, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-12-18 10:02:25 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: I think a lot of hackers forget exactly how tender their egos are. Now I say this knowing that a lot of them will go, "Oh give me a break" but as someone who employs hackers, deals with open source AND n

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 2014-12-18 10:02:25 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I think a lot of hackers forget exactly how tender their egos are. Now I say > this knowing that a lot of them will go, "Oh give me a break" but as someone > who employs hackers, deals with open source AND normal people :P every > single day, I

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

* Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: > On 12/18/14, 12:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> > >>>It does feel good to be acknowledged for our work especially when > >>>there is a policy to acknowledge this in our community. > >>> > > > >I like this idea but who is going to code our new soci

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > So, then, I have a proposal for criteria for getting on the contributors > > list via patch review: > > > > - substantial, deep review of at least one patch (including detailed > > code review and possible corrections) > >

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > >On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Frost >> wrote: > >> contributors.postgresql.org/sfrost > > > >> - Recent commits > >> - Recent commit mention

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/18/14, 12:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: It does feel good to be acknowledged for our work especially when there is a policy to acknowledge this in our community. I like this idea but who is going to code our new social network? +1. I do like the idea; but I don't like it enough to do

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/18/2014 11:03 AM, Gavin Flower wrote: Hey Joshua, what does a 'Normal" person look like??? :-) Hahhhahahah, you have to get out of your basement to see them. Usually, they are at the latest and newest coffee hub, talking about hating hipsters while wearing skinny jeans and a new

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 19/12/14 07:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 12/18/2014 04:53 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: Having your name in a list of other names at the bottom of the release notes page, without any indication of what you helped with, would work better? Perhaps it would but I tend to doubt it. Out of

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/18/2014 10:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: The problem with complicated rules (which these, I think, already are) is how to keep track of people that helps to which level. I make a point of crediting reviewers and code contributors in my commit messages, but can you tell which ones of the f

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

Josh Berkus wrote: > So, then, I have a proposal for criteria for getting on the contributors > list via patch review: > > - substantial, deep review of at least one patch (including detailed > code review and possible corrections) > > - "functionality" reviews of at least 3 patches, including f

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

All, It's sounding like folks would prefer keeing the master contributors list up to date, to adding a bunch of names to the release notes. So, then, I have a proposal for criteria for getting on the contributors list via patch review: - substantial, deep review of at least one patch (including

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/18/2014 07:31 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: +1 It does feel good to be acknowledged for our work especially when there is a policy to acknowledge this in our community. I like this idea but who is going to code our new social network? Frankly, this coin is going to become so debased a

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/18/2014 04:53 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: Having your name in a list of other names at the bottom of the release notes page, without any indication of what you helped with, would work better? Perhaps it would but I tend to doubt it. Out of my personal experience in Germany: yes, it

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/18/2014 10:19 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello mailto:fabriziome...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Frost mailto:sfr...@snowman.net>> wrote: > > > Another thought I had was to suggest we consid

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello < fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > > > Another thought I had was to suggest we consider *everyone* to be a > > contributor and implement a way to tie together the mailing lis

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > Another thought I had was to suggest we consider *everyone* to be a > contributor and implement a way to tie together the mailing list > archives with the commit history and perhaps the commitfest app and make > it searchable and indexed

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 17.12.2014 20:00, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jaime Casanova (ja...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: It has been proposed that we do a general list of people at the bottom of the release notes who helped review during that cycle. That would be less

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 16.12.2014 08:33, David Rowley wrote: On 16 December 2014 at 18:18, Josh Berkus mailto:j...@agliodbs.com>> wrote: > Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way > (and I'm tentatively on your side onthat one) and take that to imply > that we don't want

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

* Jaime Casanova (ja...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > It has been proposed that we do a general list of people at the bottom > > of the release notes who helped review during that cycle. That would > > be less intrusive and possibly a good

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > It has been proposed that we do a general list of people at the bottom > of the release notes who helped review during that cycle. That would > be less intrusive and possibly a good idea, but would we credit the > people who did a TON of re

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

Stephen Frost writes: > So, when I was first getting started with PG however many years ago, I > was ecstatic to see my name show up in a commit message. Hugely > increasing our release notes to include a bunch of names all shoved > together without any indication of what was done by each individ

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

This whole conversation reminds me of an interview I just read: https://opensource.com/business/14/12/interview-jono-bacon-xprize-director-community -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Ava

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > On 12/16/2014 01:38 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > >>It has been proposed that we do a general list of people at the bottom > >>of the release notes who helped review during that cycle. That would > >>be le

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/16/2014 01:38 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: Including all of the other names of people who made important contributions, many of which consisted of reviewing, would make that release note item - and many others - really, really long, so I'm not in f

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > Including all of the other names of people who made important > contributions, many of which consisted of reviewing, would make that > release note item - and many others - really, really long, so I'm not > in favor of that. Crediting reviewers is imp

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > David, > > * David Rowley (dgrowle...@gmail.com) wrote: > > I'd just like to add something which might be flying below the radar of > > more senior people. There are people out there (ike me) working on > > PostgreSQL more for the challe

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

David, * David Rowley (dgrowle...@gmail.com) wrote: > I'd just like to add something which might be flying below the radar of > more senior people. There are people out there (ike me) working on > PostgreSQL more for the challenge and perhaps the love of the product, who > make absolutely zero m

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > It's not like development on a patch series is difficult. You commit > small fixes and changes, then you 'git rebase -i' and reorder them to > apply to the appropriate changesets. Or you can do a 'rebase -i' and in > 'e'dit mode make amendments to ind

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/16/2014 08:48 AM, Mike Blackwell wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland > mailto:mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk>>wrote: > > > Well as I mentioned in my last email, practically all developers will > rebase and run "make check" on their patched tree before submitti

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland < mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote: > > Well as I mentioned in my last email, practically all developers will > rebase and run "make check" on their patched tree before submitting to > the list. ​Even when this is true, and with people new t

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/16/2014 4:32 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 15 December 2014 at 19:52, Josh Berkus wrote: On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best they can based on what they di

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 12/15/2014 07:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in >>> the release notes. >> >> Man. You're equating stuff that's not the s

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:33 AM, David Rowley wrote: > I'd just like to add something which might be flying below the radar of more > senior people. There are people out there (ike me) working on PostgreSQL > more for the challenge and perhaps the love of the product, who make > absolutely zero

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 16/12/14 15:42, Claudio Freire wrote: >> Also >> with a submission from git, you can near 100% guarantee that the author >> has actually built and run the code before submission. > > I don't see how. Forks don't have travis ci unless you add it, or am I > mistaken? Well as I mentioned in my

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > On 16/12/14 13:37, Claudio Freire wrote: > >>> For the second project, I can skim through my inbox daily picking up >>> specific areas I work on/are interested in, hit reply to add a couple of >>> lines of inline comments to the patch and

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 16/12/14 13:44, David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:09:34AM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >> On 16/12/14 07:33, David Rowley wrote: >> >>> On 16 December 2014 at 18:18, Josh Berkus >> > wrote: >>> >>> > Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same.

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 16/12/14 13:37, Claudio Freire wrote: >> For the second project, I can skim through my inbox daily picking up >> specific areas I work on/are interested in, hit reply to add a couple of >> lines of inline comments to the patch and send feedback to the >> author/list in just a few minutes. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:09:34AM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > On 16/12/14 07:33, David Rowley wrote: > > > On 16 December 2014 at 18:18, Josh Berkus > > wrote: > > > > > Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your > > way > > > (an

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > For the spare time that I have for review, one of these projects > requires me to download attachment(s), apply them to a git tree > (hopefully it still applies), run a complete "make check" regression > series, try and analyse a patch whi

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 16/12/14 10:49, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On 12/16/14 11:26 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >> On 15/12/14 19:27, Robert Haas wrote: >>> So, there are certainly some large patches that do that, and they >>> typically require a very senior reviewer. But there are lots of small >>> patches too, touchi

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 16/12/14 07:33, David Rowley wrote: > On 16 December 2014 at 18:18, Josh Berkus > wrote: > > > Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way > > (and I'm tentatively on your side onthat one) and take that to imply > > that we don

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/16/14 11:26 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: On 15/12/14 19:27, Robert Haas wrote: So, there are certainly some large patches that do that, and they typically require a very senior reviewer. But there are lots of small patches too, touching little enough that you can learn enough to give them

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 16/12/14 04:57, Noah Misch wrote: >> But that doesn't mean we should be turning anyone away. We should not. > > +1. Some of the best reviews I've seen are ones where the reviewer expressed > doubts about the review's quality, so don't let such doubts keep you from > participating. Every defe

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 15 December 2014 at 19:52, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate >> in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best they can >> based on what they did know. That was a helpful dynamic

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 15/12/14 19:27, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland > wrote: >> What I find frustrating is that I've come back from a workflow where >> I've been reviewing/testing patches within months of joining a project >> because the barrier for entry has been so low, an

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/16/2014 05:53 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > In practice, people don't tend to post updates to individual patches in > that way. Exactly. Much like if you push a new revision of a working branch, you repost all the changesets - or should. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQua

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 15/12/14 19:24, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 12/15/2014 02:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland >> wrote: >>> However if it were posted as part of patchset with a subject of "[PATCH] >>> gram.y: add EXCLUDED pseudo-alias to bison grammar" then this may p

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 15/12/14 19:08, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland > wrote: >> However if it were posted as part of patchset with a subject of "[PATCH] >> gram.y: add EXCLUDED pseudo-alias to bison grammar" then this may pique >> my interest enough to review the changes to

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/16/2014 03:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland > wrote: >> However if it were posted as part of patchset with a subject of "[PATCH] >> gram.y: add EXCLUDED pseudo-alias to bison grammar" then this may pique >> my interest enough to review the changes

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 16 December 2014 at 18:18, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way > > (and I'm tentatively on your side onthat one) and take that to imply > > that we don't want more reviewers. > > During that thread a couple people said that novice rev

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 16 Dec 2014 7:43 am, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2014-12-15 21:18:40 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > On 12/15/2014 07:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > >> Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in > > >> the rel

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 2014-12-15 21:18:40 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 12/15/2014 07:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in > >> the release notes. > > > > Man. You're equating stuff that's not the

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/15/2014 07:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in >> the release notes. > > Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way > (and I'm tentatively on your

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 03:29:19PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 12/15/2014 03:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >On 2014-12-15 11:52:35 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > >>On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >>>I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate > >>>in the CF

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 2014-12-15 16:14:30 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Read the thread on this list where I suggested crediting reviewers in > the release notes. Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way (and I'm tentatively on your side onthat one) and take that to imply that we don't w

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/15/2014 12:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate >>> in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best they can >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

Andres Freund writes: > On 2014-12-15 11:52:35 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate >>> in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best they can >>> based on what they did know.

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/15/2014 03:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-12-15 11:52:35 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best they can based on what they

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 2014-12-15 11:52:35 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate > > in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best they can > > based on what they did know. That was a helpful dynam

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate >> in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best they can >> based on what they did know. That was a helpful dyn

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate > in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best they can > based on what they did know. That was a helpful dynamic. Sure, the > reviews weren't perfect, but more people

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > What I find frustrating is that I've come back from a workflow where > I've been reviewing/testing patches within months of joining a project > because the barrier for entry has been so low, and yet even with much > longer experience of th

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/15/2014 02:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: However if it were posted as part of patchset with a subject of "[PATCH] gram.y: add EXCLUDED pseudo-alias to bison grammar" then this may pique my interest enough to review the changes to the g

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

Robert Haas writes: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland > wrote: >> However if it were posted as part of patchset with a subject of "[PATCH] >> gram.y: add EXCLUDED pseudo-alias to bison grammar" then this may pique >> my interest enough to review the changes to the grammar rules,

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > However if it were posted as part of patchset with a subject of "[PATCH] > gram.y: add EXCLUDED pseudo-alias to bison grammar" then this may pique > my interest enough to review the changes to the grammar rules, with the > barrier for entr

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 12/12/2014 06:02 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > > Speaking as the originator of commitfests, they were *always* intended > > to be a temporary measure, a step on the way to something else like > > continuous integration. > > I'd really like

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 15/12/14 16:28, Andres Freund wrote: > I don't believe this really is a question of the type of project. I > think it's more that especially the kernel has had to deal with similar > problems at a much larger scale. And the granular approach somewhat > works for them. Correct. My argument was

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 2014-12-15 11:21:03 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > > I should add here that the QEMU folk do tend to go to great lengths to > > preserve bisectability; often intermediate compatibility APIs are > > introduced early in the patchse

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > I should add here that the QEMU folk do tend to go to great lengths to > preserve bisectability; often intermediate compatibility APIs are > introduced early in the patchset and then removed at the very end when > the final feature

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 14/12/14 20:07, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 12/15/2014 02:46 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >> Interestingly enough, I tend to work in a very similar way to this. When >> submitting patches upstream, I tend to rebase on a new branch and then >> squash/rework as required. > > Same here, and I find it

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/15/2014 02:46 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > Interestingly enough, I tend to work in a very similar way to this. When > submitting patches upstream, I tend to rebase on a new branch and then > squash/rework as required. Same here, and I find it works really well ... when I do it properly. I

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 14/12/14 18:24, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> TBH, I'm not really on board with this line of argument. I don't find >> broken-down patches to be particularly useful for review purposes. An >> example I was just fooling with this week is the GROU

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 14/12/14 17:30, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 12/14/2014 12:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Craig Ringer writes: >>> On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS. >>> I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > TBH, I'm not really on board with this line of argument. I don't find > broken-down patches to be particularly useful for review purposes. An > example I was just fooling with this week is the GROUPING SETS patch, > which was broken into three s

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 14/12/14 17:05, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: >> On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >>> Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS. > >> I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster >> patch when I saw that'd been done. If you loo

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/14/2014 12:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Craig Ringer writes: On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS. I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster patch when I saw that'd been done. If you look at my

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 14/12/14 15:57, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > >> If I could name just one thing that I think would improve things it >> would be submission of patches to the list in git format-patch format. >> Why? Because it enables two things: 1) by definition patch

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

Craig Ringer writes: > On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >> Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS. > I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster > patch when I saw that'd been done. If you look at my part in the work on > the row securi

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 14/12/14 15:51, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >> Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS. > > I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster > patch when I saw that'd been done. If you look at my part in the work

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > If I could name just one thing that I think would improve things it > would be submission of patches to the list in git format-patch format. > Why? Because it enables two things: 1) by definition patches are > "small-chunked" into individually revi

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/14/2014 10:35 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > Compare this to say, for example, huge patches such as RLS. I specifically objected to that being flattened into a single monster patch when I saw that'd been done. If you look at my part in the work on the row security patch, while I was ultimatel

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 > #2 is solved by my previous comments about giving the CFM/C the > authority. -Core could do that, they are in charge of release. I don't think authority is the solution. Or certainly not one that would work with an open source project like

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 13/12/14 09:37, Craig Ringer wrote: >> Speaking as the originator of commitfests, they were *always* intended >> to be a temporary measure, a step on the way to something else like >> continuous integration. > > I'd really like to see the project revisit some of the underlying > assumptions th

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 13/12/14 22:37, Craig Ringer wrote: On 12/12/2014 06:02 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: Speaking as the originator of commitfests, they were *always* intended to be a temporary measure, a step on the way to something else like continuous integration. I'd really like to see the project revisit some

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/12/14 20:43, Josh Berkus wrote: On 12/12/2014 11:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Uh, really? Last I looked at the numbers from SPI treasurer reports, they are not impressive enough to hire a full-time engineer, let alone a senior one. The Linux Foundation has managed to pay for Linus Torva

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/12/2014 06:01 AM, David G Johnston wrote: > The "patch list" concept should be formalized, and should include a > "targeted release" concept. IMO, the "patch list" concept should be discarded in favour of a "working tree list". At this point, given the challenges the CF process faces, I can

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/12/2014 06:02 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Speaking as the originator of commitfests, they were *always* intended > to be a temporary measure, a step on the way to something else like > continuous integration. I'd really like to see the project revisit some of the underlying assumptions that'

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 1:13 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > On 12/12/2014 11:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Uh, really? Last I looked at the numbers from SPI treasurer reports, > > they are not impressive enough to hire a full-time engineer, let alone a > > senior one. > > > > The Linux Foundation

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 12/12/2014 11:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 11.12.2014 16:06, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/12/2014 01:22 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: On 12/12/14, 1:44 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: 1. We don't need a full-time engineer to manage a commitfest. We need a manager or PM. I don't think that's actually true. The major points on this thread are that 1) we don't have enough capacity for doing

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/12/14, 1:44 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: 1. We don't need a full-time engineer to manage a commitfest. We need a manager or PM. I don't think that's actually true. The major points on this thread are that 1) we don't have enough capacity for doing reviews and 2) the CFM has no authority

Re: [HACKERS] Commitfest problems

On 12/12/14, 2:38 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: Just as a note abot this one part along (I'll read the rest later). I do have the new version of the CF app more or less ready to deploy, but I got bogged down by thinking "I'll do it between two commitfests to not be disruptive". But there has been no "

  1   2   >