On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:25:49AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of good ideas here. I know that I
> spend as much time reviewing other people's patches as I can manage to
> find in my schedule, and I know a lot of people would probably like to
> see me do more of t
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:15:14AM -0400, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 20 May 2015 at 03:13, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Brief committer appraisals are unhelpful individually, but patterns
> > matter. I
> > would make the questionnaire as simple as necessary to get 4-7 committer
> > evaluations per patch.
On 20 May 2015 at 03:13, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:55:11PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > > I think part of that is saying "no" more efficiently, upfront. Which is
> > > why I really want the triage step.
> > > a) It
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:55:11PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I think part of that is saying "no" more efficiently, upfront. Which is
> > why I really want the triage step.
> > a) It's much better for the project to not have several "junio
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> The vary earliest time frame that would make sense to me is to branch
>> July 1st and start a CF on July 15th.
>
> I'm wondering why the CF has to start after branching? Or is that just
> two independent dates? The first week or so of the fi
On 18 May 2015 at 23:34, Robert Haas wrote:
> On May 18, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> On 2015-05-19 11:34:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> +1 for moving it at least 1 month.
> >
> > 2015-06-15 also collides with pgcon, which probably isn't the best
> > idea. I do think we sh
On 05/19/2015 11:02 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Hasn't every talented reviewer gotten job offers shortly afterwards in
the last few years? The ones that accept don't necessarily work that
much in the community, but several seem to. And I think in the case of
several people the reason they don't
On 05/19/2015 10:44 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
I don't know what the solution is but I know I like the idea of a tree
freeze except for bug fixes for at least 3 weeks but I would be jumping for
joy if we froze the tree except for bug fixes for 6 or 12 weeks.
We've done that for pretty much ever
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm not sure. ISTM that a painfull couple hours every now and then are
> much less bad than the continuous CF we had lately. I personally also
> find it frustrating to go through the CF and see a good portion of
> things that I never can see
On 2015-05-19 09:43:54 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 05/18/2015 08:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> >Maybe we should forget them and just have monthly 'judgefests' where
> >some poor sod summarizes the current state and direction, and we then
> >collaboratively discuss whether we see things
On 2015-05-19 10:25:49 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I personally think the late close of the 9.4 cycle has alone thrings far
> > enough off track that we can't fairly evaluate a 5 CF schedule.
>
> Oh, I agree with that.
Ah, ok.
> The var
On 05/18/2015 08:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Maybe we should forget them and just have monthly 'judgefests' where
some poor sod summarizes the current state and direction, and we then
collaboratively discuss whether we see things going anywhere and if not,
what would need to happen that they do
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > [first 9.6 CF around 2015-07-15]
>
>> Honestly, that seems awful soon. I would have thought maybe August 15th.
>
> Maybe we should just rename it to 9.6-1 for now? And then look how
> things look around pgcon?
I'd rather agree on a date
On 2015-05-18 23:34:16 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On May 18, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > [first 9.6 CF around 2015-07-15]
> Honestly, that seems awful soon. I would have thought maybe August 15th.
Maybe we should just rename it to 9.6-1 for now? And then look how
things look a
On 2015-05-18 23:30:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> On 2015-05-19 11:34:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>> There are many remaining open items.
>
> >> At least on https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9
On May 18, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2015-05-19 11:34:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> +1 for moving it at least 1 month.
>
> 2015-06-15 also collides with pgcon, which probably isn't the best
> idea. I do think we should try hard doing a triage at the start of a CF
> and n
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2015-05-19 11:34:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> There are many remaining open items.
>> At least on https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items
>> there not really that many?
> On top of
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-05-19 11:34:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> +1 for moving it at least 1 month.
>
> 2015-06-15 also collides with pgcon, which probably isn't the best
> idea. I do think we should try hard doing a triage at the start of a CF
> and
On 2015-05-19 11:34:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> +1 for moving it at least 1 month.
2015-06-15 also collides with pgcon, which probably isn't the best
idea. I do think we should try hard doing a triage at the start of a CF
and not many with experience in the project are going to have time
ar
On 05/18/2015 07:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
So +1 to moving it.
+1
I for one would love to see a nice and solid focus on what we have now
for a little while versus diverting resources yet again to new development.
+1
--
Command
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-05-18 22:05:47 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> +1 for not starting a CommitFest on 2015-06-15. If we're going to take 9.5
>> from feature freeze to general availability in four months, we won't get
>> there
>> by diving into 9.6 develo
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> So +1 to moving it.
+1
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 2015-05-18 22:05:47 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> +1 for not starting a CommitFest on 2015-06-15. If we're going to take 9.5
> from feature freeze to general availability in four months, we won't get there
> by diving into 9.6 development in the first of those months.
We could rechristen it a 're
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:32:03AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> We also need to start thinking about what happens after feature
> freeze. The CommitFest application currently lists a 2015-06
> CommitFest which, according to previous practice, would be expected to
> start on the 15th of the month.
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Robert Haas writes:
>
> > I am already concerned about some of the commits that have gone in
> > very recently, particularly these:
>
> There is going to need to be a mop-up period, and we ought to be willing
> to revert anything we feel wasn't
On 05/13/2015 09:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund writes:
On 2015-05-13 11:52:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
One thing that continues to bother me about the commitfest process is that
it's created a default expectation that things get committed eventually.
Agreed that this is a problem. I t
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-05-13 11:52:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> One thing that continues to bother me about the commitfest process is that
>> it's created a default expectation that things get committed eventually.
> Agreed that this is a problem. I think we need to work on giving that
>
On 2015-05-13 11:52:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> One thing that continues to bother me about the commitfest process is that
> it's created a default expectation that things get committed eventually.
> But many new ideas are just plain bad, and others are things that nobody
> but the author cares abo
On 05/13/2015 08:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
What I think we need to be doing this week is triage. Commit what's
ready, punt what's not. I'll post a separate list about that.
regards, tom lane
+1
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
On 2015-05-13 11:49:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Let me put a finer point on this --- whatever gets pushed to 9.6
> > unreasonably will be a feature we don't have in 9.5 and will discourage
> > future development. I know we can't do mag
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:52:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Let me put a finer point on this --- whatever gets pushed to 9.6
> > unreasonably will be a feature we don't have in 9.5 and will discourage
> > future development. I know we can't do magic, but now is the time
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Let me put a finer point on this --- whatever gets pushed to 9.6
> unreasonably will be a feature we don't have in 9.5 and will discourage
> future development. I know we can't do magic, but now is the time to
> try.
The other side of that coin is that the stuff that ends
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> We have three days left so I think we need committers to devote serious
>> time, if possible, to helping us resolve as much as we can. If we start
>> thinking about this on Friday, it is too late.
>
> Let me put a finer point on this --- w
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:19:29AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:32:03AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > We also need to start thinking about what happens after feature
> > > freeze. The CommitFest application currently lists
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:19:29AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:32:03AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > We also need to start thinking about what happens after feature
> > freeze. The CommitFest application currently lists a 2015-06
> > CommitFest which, according to prev
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:32:03AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> We also need to start thinking about what happens after feature
> freeze. The CommitFest application currently lists a 2015-06
> CommitFest which, according to previous practice, would be expected to
> start on the 15th of the month.
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> - Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch - Whacks around
>> my earlier commit without agreement or adequate discussion, apparently
>> on the theory that Tom always knows best.
>
> As far as that goes, obviously I've got strong opinio
Robert Haas writes:
> It's pretty clear that the impending feature freeze proposed by core
> has spurred a lot of activity. This is both good and bad. On the
> good side, we're getting a bunch of stuff done. On the bad side,
> there is inevitably going to be a temptation to rush things in that
Hi,
It's pretty clear that the impending feature freeze proposed by core
has spurred a lot of activity. This is both good and bad. On the
good side, we're getting a bunch of stuff done. On the bad side,
there is inevitably going to be a temptation to rush things in that
are really not quite ful
39 matches
Mail list logo
