> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing
> them.
> > At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
>
> > If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need
> your
> > help
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 09:54:02PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > * coding review - does it follow standard code guidelines? Are there
> > portability issues? Will it work on Windows/BSD etc? Are there
> > sufficient comments?
> >
> >
On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 04:03 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > I think this should be organised with different kinds of reviewer...
>
> Great post. Rewrote the intro a bit and turned it into a first bit of
> reviewer training material at
> http://wiki.post
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Marko Kreen wrote:
I think we have better results and more relaxed atmospere if we
use following task description for reviewers:
I assimilated this and some of your later comments into
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch as well. I disagree
with your feelin
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Simon Riggs wrote:
I think this should be organised with different kinds of reviewer...
Great post. Rewrote the intro a bit and turned it into a first bit of
reviewer training material at
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch
--
* Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTE
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> I suppose what happens is the original patch comes with design and
>> later a newer version is posted with just changes. The commitfest page
>> points to the latter, losing former in the archive somewhere.
> Hmm, IMO thi
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Just one thing though, I picked a random patch and started reading.
> However, the commitfest page doesn't link to anywhere that actually
> describes *what* the patch is trying to do. Many patches do have the
> design and the patch in one page, but some don't.
>
>
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 09:54:02PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> * coding review - does it follow standard code guidelines? Are there
> portability issues? Will it work on Windows/BSD etc? Are there
> sufficient comments?
>
> * code review - does it do what it says, correctly?
Just one thing though
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 09:19 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >
> >
> >> If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need
> >> your
> >> help reviewing patches! There are several "easy" patch
On 9/5/08, Marko Kreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The list is correct but too verbose. And it does not attack the core
> of the problem. I think the problem is not:
>
> What can/should I do?
>
> but instead:
>
> Can I take the responsibility?
To clarify it - that was the problem I faced
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 17:19 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> >
> > I think this should be organised with different kinds of reviewer:
>
> The list is correct but too verbose. And it does not attack the core
> of the problem. I think the problem is not:
>
> What can/should I do?
>
> but instead:
On 9/5/08, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 16:03 +0200, Markus Wanner wrote:
> > > I don't *want* the rule, I just think we *need* the rule because
> > > otherwise sponsors/managers/etc make business decisions to exclude that
> > > aspect of the software dev proce
Hi,
Simon Riggs wrote:
Such as?
Dunno. Rules for sponsors? It would probably make sense to not only pay
a single developer to create and submit a patch, but instead plan for
paying others to review the code as well.
You might think those arguments exist and work, but I would say
they mani
On 9/4/08, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing them.
> > At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
> >
> > If you are a postgresql hacker at
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 16:03 +0200, Markus Wanner wrote:
> > I don't *want* the rule, I just think we *need* the rule because
> > otherwise sponsors/managers/etc make business decisions to exclude that
> > aspect of the software dev process.
>
> I agree that making sponsors/managers/etc aware of
Hi,
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 09:19 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
All this would do is to deter people from submitting patches. Hard rules
like this don't work in FOSS communities. I know it's like herding cats,
but persuasion is really our only tool.
+1
I don't *want* the ru
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> I don't *want* the rule, I just think we *need* the rule because
> otherwise sponsors/managers/etc make business decisions to exclude that
> aspect of the software dev process.
How exactly would you even begin to enforce such a rule? Retroact
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need your
help reviewing patches! There are several "easy" patches in the list, so
I can assign them to beginners.
It would be a reasonable
Josh Berkus wrote:
Hackers,
We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing them.
At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need your
help reviewing patches! There are several "easy
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 12:18 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> It would be a reasonable rule that all patch submitters also have to
> do patch reviews.
This is almost the only way to be accepted as a contributor to Fedora --
and I like it.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.
> That way, instead of just an appeal to the masses to volunteer for
> $NEBULOUS_TASK, we can say something like "Please volunteer to review
> patches. Doing an initial patch review is easy, please see our guide
> to learn more."
+1. I'll review a patch if you like, but the patch I have in this
Josh Berkus wrote:
Hackers,
We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing them.
At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need your
help reviewing patches! There are several "easy
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need your
> help reviewing patches! There are several "easy" patches in the list, so
> I can assign them to beginners.
It would be a reasonable rule that all patch submi
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Please volunteer now!
>
> Everybody is stuck in "I'm not good enough to do a full review". They're
> right (myself included), so that just means we're organising it wr
"Alex Hunsaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can happily through some hardware at this. Although
> "production-grade" is in the eye of the beholder...
I just posted a revised patch in the pgsql-patches thread.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think what the hash index patch really needs is some performance
> testing. I'm willing to take responsibility for the code being okay
> or not, but I haven't got any production-grade hardware to do realistic
> performance te
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 14:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If anyone is willing to do comparative performance testing, I'll
>> volunteer to make up two variant patches that do it both ways and
>> are otherwise equivalent.
> Why not do both, set via a reloption?
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 10:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing them.
> At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
>
> If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need your
> help reviewin
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 14:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> If anyone is willing to do comparative performance testing, I'll
> volunteer to make up two variant patches that do it both ways and
> are otherwise equivalent.
Why not do both, set via a reloption? We can then set the default to
whichever win
Kenneth Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:01:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think what the hash index patch really needs is some performance
>> testing. I'm willing to take responsibility for the code being okay
>> or not, but I haven't got any production-grade ha
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:01:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'll push forward on reviewing and testing Xiao's hash index
> > improvements for inclusion into core. Though, someone will still need
> > to review my stuff.
>
> I think what the hash in
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll push forward on reviewing and testing Xiao's hash index
> improvements for inclusion into core. Though, someone will still need
> to review my stuff.
I think what the hash index patch really needs is some performance
testing. I'm willing to ta
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing them.
> At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
I'll push forward on reviewing and testing Xiao's hash index
improvements for inclusi
Hackers,
We currently have 38 patches pending, and only nine people reviewing them.
At this rate, the September commitfest will take three months.
If you are a postgresql hacker at all, or even want to be one, we need your
help reviewing patches! There are several "easy" patches in the list
34 matches
Mail list logo
