I want to help on this area, but I need a mentor for this. For example, Heikki will be a excellent mentor for me.
Following the theme, I think that we have to wide all questions for the process of the acceptance of a patch on the same way that you Simon. We could write new requirements with all these ideas. Don´t you think? Regards "The hurry is enemy of the success: for that reason.......Be patient" Ing. Marcos L. Ortiz Valmaseda Línea Soporte y Despliegue Centro de Tecnologías de Almacenamiento y Análisis de Datos (CENTALAD) Linux User # 418229 PostgreSQL User http://www.postgresql.org http://www.planetpostgresql.org/ http://www.postgresql-es.org/ ----- Mensaje original ----- De: "Simon Riggs" <si...@2ndquadrant.com> Para: "Robert Haas" <robertmh...@gmail.com> CC: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com>, "Josh Berkus" <j...@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Enviados: Jueves, 17 de Septiembre 2009 20:53:24 GMT -10:00 Hawai Asunto: Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby 0.2.1 On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 19:01 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > I'm going to put the index-only scans aside for now to focus on hot > > standby and streaming replication. Both are big patches, so there's > > plenty of work in those two alone, and not only for me. > > What is the best way to attack this? Should I keep reviewing > index-only scans so that you have feedback for when you get back to > it, or should I move on to something else? If something else, does it > make more sense for me to look at HS since I did a bit of work with a > previous version, or would it be better for me to just pick one of the > other patches from the CommitFest and work on that? > > Also, stepping back from me personally, should we try to assign some > additional reviewers to these patches? Is there some way we can > divide up review tasks among multiple people so that we're not > repeating each others work? > > Thoughts appreciated, from Heikki, Simon, or others. I think this is a great opportunity to widen the pool of people contributing to reviews. I suggest the creation of a second group of people, performing round-robin testing of patches. These people would be able to verify * documentation matches implemented features (does it do what it says on the tin?) * usability of explicit features (do the features work well?) * usability gap of unimplemented features (what else do we need?) * are there any bugs? These questions are often quickly answered for smaller patches, but HS's scope mean that such a task properly executed could take a full week, if not longer. Second group of people are just as skilled Postgres people as reviewers, in some cases more so, apart from they have less detailed knowledge of the codebase. We have many such people and it would be good to encourage them to perform thorough reviews rather than "tire kicking". I'm not sure that Heikki needs additional reviewers. He now has significant knowledge of the patch and is good at focusing on key aspects of the internals. Other code reviewers are welcome, of course. -- Simon Riggs 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
