Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Other posts have suggested that "review fests" might be helpful >> in this period. Again, it sounds to me, from other posts on this >> thread, as though the primary risk is that people working on the >> release could see something they couldn't resist getting drawn >> into -- taking them off-task and delaying the release. The >> obvious solution to that would be to create a >> pgsql-journeyman-peer-review list for review fests during the >> release window. > > Be careful, you're wandering quickly down the classic path by > which you'll find yourself in charge of doing some work here. Worse things could happen. ;-) I've shied away from stepping up to bigger commitments here because of family situations which can make unpredictable demands on my time; however, those seem to have settled down somewhat in recent months, so I might venture such a commitment. > I think it's completely reasonable to say that someone could > organize pgsql-rrreviewers (as an initial working area, maybe > another list eventually) for periodic ReviewFest during periods > where those patches won't be considered for commit, such as beta. > Now that most patch submitters have gotten used to doing a > matching bit of peer review, the pool of people to do the reviews > is there without having to pull anyone else into that. I could > even see the rrreviewers list or another one split out of it grow > into a somewhat gentler place for people to ask for help with > their patch development too--just ban all the grumpy people from > there (I'll unsubscribe myself). LOL. > The important thing is that everyone would need to careful to > respect not letting that spill over onto this list during the > periods there is no official CommitFest going on, or there will be > a net increase in said grumpy people. Understood. > Looking at stats here for the recent CFs, about 40% of patches > submitted are returned with feedback (or rejected) rather than > being committed anyway. And I'm estimating that >80% of patches > only reach comittable after a round of review+corrections first. > Getting a lot of that work out of the way outside of the regular > CF seems a worthwhile goal. > > Starting the first CommitFest of the next version (normally a > quite painful one) with a set of patches already marked "Ready for > Committer" or pruned out with feedback already, all because > they've been through a round or two of initial review, would be a > nice improvement. Just drop a summary of what's been done onto > pgsql-hackers once the CF opens again for the ones still in the > running and off you go. The existing CF app could be used to track > the early review work too, so someone who wasn't on > pgsql-rrreviewers could dig into the archives to catch up in a > few minutes by following the message ID links. I do that all the > time for patches I had previously been ignoring and deleting out > of my mailbox. I see all those benefits, plus the possibility of a few more subtle but potentially significant ones. What next? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
