On 7/18/22 15:32, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:00:01PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
>> And thank you for speaking up so quickly! It's a lot easier to undo
>> partial damage :D (Speaking of which: where is that CF update stream you
>> mentioned?)
>
> https://commitfest.postgres
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:00:01PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> And thank you for speaking up so quickly! It's a lot easier to undo
> partial damage :D (Speaking of which: where is that CF update stream you
> mentioned?)
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/activity/
--
Justin
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:06:34PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 7/17/22 08:17, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Yeah, I happened to look in my commitfest update folder this morning and
>> was surprised to learn that I was no longer reviewing 3612. I spent a good
>> amount of ti
;> remove
>> themself", it was on purpose and not by omission. I think most of those
>> people
>> would be surprised to learn that they're no longer considered to be reviewing
>> the patch.
>
> Yeah, I happened to look in my commitfest update folder this
On 7/15/22 19:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On this point, I'd like to think that a window of two weeks is a right
> balance. That's half of the commit fest, so that leaves plenty of
> time for one to answer. There is always the case where one is on
> vacations for a period longer than that, but i
On 7/18/22 06:13, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:05:51PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Maybe we should have two reviewers columns -- one for history-tracking
>> purposes (and commit msg credit) and another for current ones.
>
> Maybe. Or, the list of reviewers shouldn't be sh
Justin,
(Consolidating replies here.)
On 7/15/22 19:13, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> cfbot is Thomas's project, so moving it run on postgres vm was one step, but I
> imagine the "integration with cfapp" requires coordination with Magnus.
>
> What patch ?
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAWbhmg
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:23:48PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
>> This is important stuff to discuss, for sure, but I also want to revisit
>> the thing I put on pause, which is to clear out old Reviewer entries to
>> make it easier for new reviewers to find work to do. If we're not using
>> Review
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 03:05:51PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Maybe we should have two reviewers columns -- one for history-tracking
> purposes (and commit msg credit) and another for current ones.
Maybe. Or, the list of reviewers shouldn't be shown prominently in the list of
patches. But ch
Maybe we should have two reviewers columns -- one for history-tracking
purposes (and commit msg credit) and another for current ones.
Personally, I don't use the CF app when building reviewer lists. I scan
the threads instead.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.Enter
ot by omission. I think most of those
> people
> would be surprised to learn that they're no longer considered to be reviewing
> the patch.
Yeah, I happened to look in my commitfest update folder this morning and
was surprised to learn that I was no longer reviewing 3612. I spent a
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:23:48PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> I agree in principle -- I think, ideally, WoA patches should be
> procedurally closed at the end of a commitfest, and carried forward when
> the author has actually responded. The problems I can imagine resulting
> from this are
>
>
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:23:48PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> This is important stuff to discuss, for sure, but I also want to revisit
> the thing I put on pause, which is to clear out old Reviewer entries to
> make it easier for new reviewers to find work to do. If we're not using
> Reviewers
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:23:48PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 7/15/22 16:15, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:17:49PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> >> Also, I would like to see us fold cfbot output into the official CF,
> >> rather than do the opposite.
> >
> > That's be
On 7/15/22 16:15, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:17:49PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
>> Also, I would like to see us fold cfbot output into the official CF,
>> rather than do the opposite.
>
> That's been the plan for years :)
Is there something other than lack of round tuits
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:17:49PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > Also, cfapp has a page for "patches where you are the author", but the cfbot
> > doesn't,
>
> (I assume you mean "reviewer"?)
Yes
> Also, I would like to see us fold cfbot output into the official CF,
> rather than do the opposi
On 7/15/22 14:57, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 02:41:52PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
>> If there are no objections, I'll start doing that during next Friday's
>> patch sweep.
>
> I think it's fine to update the cfapp fields to reflect reality...
>
> ..but a couple updates th
On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 02:41:52PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 3/31/22 07:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:11 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> ... Would it be feasible or reasonable
> >>> to drop reviewers if they've not commented in the thread in X amount
> On 11 Jul 2022, at 15:07, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> No objections, but this adds another item to the implicit commitfest
> app user manual, that to the best of my knowledge seems to be mostly
> implicit institutional knowledge plus bits of information spread
> around the mailing lists.
On Fri, 8 Jul 2022, 23:41 Jacob Champion, wrote:
>
> On 3/31/22 07:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:11 AM Tom Lane wrote:
... Would it be feasible or reasonable
to drop reviewers if they've not commented in the thread in X amount
of time?
>
On 3/31/22 07:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:11 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ... Would it be feasible or reasonable
>>> to drop reviewers if they've not commented in the thread in X amount
>>> of time?
>
>> In theory, this might cause someone who made a valuabl
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:11 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Would it be feasible or reasonable
>> to drop reviewers if they've not commented in the thread in X amount
>> of time?
> In theory, this might cause someone who made a valuable contribution
> to the discussion to not g
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:11 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> This reminds me of a point I've been meaning to bring up: it seems to
> often happen that someone adds their name as reviewer, but then loses
> interest and doesn't do anything more with the patch. I think that's
> problematic because people see
Pavel Borisov writes:
> In my experience, re-applying an updated patch to a new CF is very easy.
> You can re-attach the existing discussion thread. The only information that
> can be lost is CF-specific fields like reviewer/author which is worth
> re-adding manually.
Yeah. In fact, it might be
чт, 31 мар. 2022 г. в 15:09, Matthias van de Meent <
boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:56, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2022-Mar-31, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 02:41:26PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Patches that are Waiting
On 2022-Mar-31, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> I know that this has happened earlier; where someone re-opened their
> old RwF-patches in closed commitfests; after which those patches got
> lost in the traffic because they are not open in the current (or
> upcoming) commitfests.
Hmm, it's quite po
On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:56, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2022-Mar-31, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 02:41:26PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> > >
> > > Patches that are Waiting on Author and haven't had activity in months
> > > -- traditionally they were set to Returned with Fe
On 2022-Mar-31, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 02:41:26PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> >
> > Patches that are Waiting on Author and haven't had activity in months
> > -- traditionally they were set to Returned with Feedback. It seems the
> > feeling these days is to not lose state o
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 02:41:26PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Patches that are Waiting on Author and haven't had activity in months
> -- traditionally they were set to Returned with Feedback. It seems the
> feeling these days is to not lose state on them and just move them to
> the next CF. I'm n
On 30.03.22 20:41, Greg Stark wrote:
Patches that are Waiting on Author and haven't had activity in months
-- traditionally they were set to Returned with Feedback. It seems the
feeling these days is to not lose state on them and just move them to
the next CF. I'm not sure that's wise, it ends up
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 2:42 PM Greg Stark wrote:
> Patches that are Waiting on Author and haven't had activity in months
> -- traditionally they were set to Returned with Feedback. It seems the
> feeling these days is to not lose state on them and just move them to
> the next CF. I'm not sure tha
Since the previous update 30 additional patches have been committed
from the CF. This leaves us with 120 Needs Review and 20 Ready for
Committer. There's only a few days left until the end of the month.
* Add comment about startup process getting a free procState array slot always
* Consistent use
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 4:47 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> If it were me, I'd move these out of the way somehow; WOA/RWF or move to June:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3291/ Add PGDLLIMPORT to all direct or
> indirect GUC variables
I plan to do this yet, but it seemed best to leave it unt
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 02:07:16PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> So far this commitfest these 10 patches have been marked committed.
> That leaves us with 175 "Needs Review" and 28 "Ready for Comitter" so
> quite a ways to go ...
If it were me, I'd move these out of the way somehow; WOA/RWF or move t
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 3:08 AM Greg Stark wrote:
> In case anyone's looking for inspiration... Here are the list of
> patches marked Ready for Committer:
> * Fast COPY FROM command for the foreign tables
I have (re-)started reviewing this patch.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
So far this commitfest these 10 patches have been marked committed.
That leaves us with 175 "Needs Review" and 28 "Ready for Comitter" so
quite a ways to go ...
* FUNCAPI tuplestore helper function
* parse/analyze API refactoring
* Add wal_compression=zstd
* Add id's to various elements in protoco
36 matches
Mail list logo
