On 05.11.2015 13:49, Craig Ringer wrote:
I believe that we need to lower the barrier for testing.
While I agree, I'd also like to note that formulaic testing is often
of limited utility. Good testing still requires a significant
investment of time and effort to understand the changes made by a
On 5 November 2015 at 15:59, Torsten Zühlsdorff
wrote:
> Hello,
>
>>> +1. FWIW, I'm willing to review some patches for this CommitFest, but
>>> if the committers have to do first-round review as well as
>>> committer-review of every patch in the CommitFest, this is going to be
>>> long, ugly, and
Hello,
+1. FWIW, I'm willing to review some patches for this CommitFest, but
if the committers have to do first-round review as well as
committer-review of every patch in the CommitFest, this is going to be
long, ugly, and painful. We need to have a substantial pool of
non-committers involved
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> And now CF begins officially. The axe has fallen as promised 26 hours after.
>>
>> Seeing no volunteers around, I can take th
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> And now CF begins officially. The axe has fallen as promised 26 hours after.
>
> Seeing no volunteers around, I can take the CFM hat for November's CF.
> Any objections/complaints/rem
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> And now CF begins officially. The axe has fallen as promised 26 hours after.
Seeing no volunteers around, I can take the CFM hat for November's CF.
Any objections/complaints/remarks?
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgs
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> On 10/31/15 12:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>
>>> So, seeing nothing happening I have done the above, opened 2015-11 CF
>>> and closed the current one.
>>
>>
>> Are we doing these
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 10/31/15 11:19 AM, Nathan Wagner wrote:
>> I think it would be very useful to just be able to tell the system "fire
>> this up for me so I can test it". I don't think it needs to handle
>> every possible testing scenario, just making it easier to leave up the
>> test postma
On 10/31/15 11:19 AM, Nathan Wagner wrote:
>You could imagine putting something into the standard makefiles
>that did some subset of this, but I think it would be too rigid
>to be useful.
I think it would be very useful to just be able to tell the system "fire
this up for me so I can test it".
On 11/1/15 11:36 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
Are we doing these in an Australian time zone now? It was quite unpleasant
to find that the 2015-11 is "in progress" already and two of my patches will
not be in there. AFAIR the submission deadl
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 10/31/15 12:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> So, seeing nothing happening I have done the above, opened 2015-11 CF
>> and closed the current one.
>
>
> Are we doing these in an Australian time zone now? It was quite unpleasant
> to fin
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:43:13PM +, Nathan Wagner wrote:
> There was then some further discussion on the interface, and what to do
> with startup files, and nothing was really decided, and then the thread
> petered out. This potential reviewer is then left with the conclusion
> that this pat
On 10/31/15 12:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
So, seeing nothing happening I have done the above, opened 2015-11 CF
and closed the current one.
Are we doing these in an Australian time zone now? It was quite
unpleasant to find that the 2015-11 is "in progress" already and two of
my patches wi
[ separate response for questions that are about process not mechanics ]
Nathan Wagner writes:
> Back to the patch in question, so Mr Brightwell noted that the patch
> doesn't apply against master. Should someone then mark the patch as
> waiting on author? Is failing to apply against master a '
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:08:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Wagner writes:
> > Second, it would be convenient if there were a make target that would
> > set up a test environment. Effectively do what the 'make check' does,
> > but don't run the tests and leave the database up. It should p
Nathan Wagner writes:
> Second, it would be convenient if there were a make target that would
> set up a test environment. Effectively do what the 'make check' does,
> but don't run the tests and leave the database up. It should probably
> drop you into a shell that has the paths set up as well.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:03:59AM +0100, Robert Haas wrote:
> +1. FWIW, I'm willing to review some patches for this CommitFest, but
> if the committers have to do first-round review as well as
> committer-review of every patch in the CommitFest, this is going to be
> long, ugly, and painful. We
On 2015-10-31 06:50:09 +0100, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > You seemingly moved all entries, even the ones which were
> > waiting-on-author for a long while, over? I think we should return items
> > on there with lot of prejudice. Otherwise we'
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> I know. We should normally begin the cleanup activity far earlier IMO,
> like at the end of the commit fest month to give patch authors a
> couple of weeks to rework what they have if they would like to resend
> something for the next commi
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-10-31 00:42:54 +0100, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Amo
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-10-31 00:42:54 +0100, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Gosh, that's a lot of stuff that didn't get reviewed. :-(
>> Yep.
> Yea, this is probably one of the worst commitfests ever from the point
> of reviewer partic
On 2015-10-31 00:42:54 +0100, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Among the five patches marked as ready for committer, one is a bu
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Among the five patches marked as ready for committer, one is a bug fix
that should be back-patched (ahem). Shouldn't we m
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Among the five patches marked as ready for committer, one is a bug fix
>>> that should be back-patched (ahem). Shouldn't we move on with those
>>> entries first?
>>
>> I think at th
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Among the five patches marked as ready for committer, one is a bug fix
>> that should be back-patched (ahem). Shouldn't we move on with those
>> entries first?
>
> I think at this point we essentially can just move all entries to the
> next.
On 2015-10-22 10:52:36 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> We are close to the end of October, and the numbers are a bit more
> encouraging than at the beginning:
FWIW, I think this has been a commitfest with frustratingly low review
participation outside a few patches.
> Among the five patches marke
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> To review (copying Heikki's message):
>
> 1. Pick a patch from the list at:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/6/
>
> 2. Review it. Test it. Try to break it. Do we want the feature? Any
> weird interactions in corner-cases? Does it have th
On 09/03/2015 03:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
Two days ago the September Commitfest started. I'm going to be your
host^W commitfest manager this time round.
To start off I went through all entries and tried to make sure their
state is accurate. Right now we have:
Needs review: 47
Hi,
Two days ago the September Commitfest started. I'm going to be your
host^W commitfest manager this time round.
To start off I went through all entries and tried to make sure their
state is accurate. Right now we have:
Needs review: 47
Waiting on Author: 24
Ready for Committer:
29 matches
Mail list logo
