hi.
It seems we don't have much info about "Patch Triage" in 2025.
but 2023, 2024 we do have.
like:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDay_2024_Developer_Meeting#v17_Patch_Triage
and
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDay_2023_Developer_Meeting#v16_Patch_Triage
> On 5 Mar 2025, at 19:32, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Mar-05, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> I would avoid using Google for finding content on the wiki, the search
>> function
>> on the wiki itself is generally more reliable. Searching for FOSDEM 2025
>> returns the following as the top
On 2025-Mar-05, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> I would avoid using Google for finding content on the wiki, the search
> function
> on the wiki itself is generally more reliable. Searching for FOSDEM 2025
> returns the following as the top result:
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDa
> On 4 Mar 2025, at 15:10, jian he wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 2:39 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> They will be on the wiki shortly, I've taken notes of all discussions and am
>> busy tidying them up to be able to publish them once the participants have
>> proofread to ensure noone is misatt
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 2:39 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 4 Feb 2025, at 06:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> >> During the developer meeting at FOSDEM last Thursday,
> >
> > BTW, are there minutes available from that meeting? In past years
> > some notes have been p
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:14 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > But let's not make the mistake of saying "we're not going to move
> > things automatically because we want to find out if the authors are
> > still interested" and then getting really concerned when some stuff
> > doesn't
Robert Haas writes:
> But let's not make the mistake of saying "we're not going to move
> things automatically because we want to find out if the authors are
> still interested" and then getting really concerned when some stuff
> doesn't get moved. That's missing the whole point.
+1. Having a si
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:17 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> CF 2025-03 is to begin in more or less 48 hours, and we have still a
> grand total of 72 patches still listed in CF 2025-01:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/51/
>
> It's a good score, as 286 patches have been moved without doing any
> k
On 2025-02-27 Th 12:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 12:22:52PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
CF 2025-01 has just ended, so I suggest that everyone try this now. We can
check in perhaps two weeks whether this results in lots of stuff falling
through the cracks or still t
On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 12:22:52PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> CF 2025-01 has just ended, so I suggest that everyone try this now. We can
> check in perhaps two weeks whether this results in lots of stuff falling
> through the cracks or still too much stuff with unclear status being moved
> f
> On 19 Feb 2025, at 23:44, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> One thing that should work is to send it from an account with the actual
> postgresql.org domain on it.
I've just confirmed that this works, so we have a way forward on this.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 11:19 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 17:24, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > There is functionality in the CF app to send an email to authors with a
> patch
> > still in the previous commitfest, it would be quite trivial to alert
> everyone.
> >
> > We s
> On 19 Feb 2025, at 23:18, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 17:24, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> There is functionality in the CF app to send an email to authors with a patch
>> still in the previous commitfest, it would be quite trivial to alert
>> everyone.
>>
>> We should
On 2025-02-19 We 1:03 PM, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 17:32, Robert Haas wrote:
What *I* think is incredibly painful is that I can spend an
hour going through the CommitFest and not find a single patch that
needs a review. And it's not just me.I have heard of multiple cases
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 17:24, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> There is functionality in the CF app to send an email to authors with a patch
> still in the previous commitfest, it would be quite trivial to alert everyone.
>
> We should of course also add some form of messaging in the app itself to make
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 8:32 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> I respectfully but firmly question your definition of "incredibly
> painful". What *I* think is incredibly painful is that I can spend an
> hour going through the CommitFest and not find a single patch that
> needs a review. And it's not just me
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 17:32, Robert Haas wrote:
> What *I* think is incredibly painful is that I can spend an
> hour going through the CommitFest and not find a single patch that
> needs a review. And it's not just me.I have heard of multiple cases
> of people wanting to get involved in patch rev
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:30 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> Moving stuff to the next commitfest is incredibly painful at the
> moment. It currently takes 4 clicks per patch to move it to the next
> commitfest. We could probably get this to 1 per patch with some UX
> redesign. But that still means
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 8:30 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 16:02, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > The opposite, which was discussed at length at FOSDEM, was to ask
> authors to
> > click a single button once a month at most. If that level of engagement
> is too
> > much to a
> On 19 Feb 2025, at 16:24, Aleksander Alekseev
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> How about having the cfbot send out some nagmail to patch authors,
>> saying "please move your patch forward, or close it if no longer
>> interested"? If nothing happens after a few rounds of that,
>> an auto-close could be
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 16:02, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> The opposite, which was discussed at length at FOSDEM, was to ask authors to
> click a single button once a month at most. If that level of engagement is
> too
> much to ask then maybe said authors should question why they in return ask
>
Hi,
> How about having the cfbot send out some nagmail to patch authors,
> saying "please move your patch forward, or close it if no longer
> interested"? If nothing happens after a few rounds of that,
> an auto-close could be justified.
Well, it is a possibility of course. If I read the current
Aleksander Alekseev writes:
>> On Feb 19, 2025, at 10:02 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> The opposite, which was discussed at length at FOSDEM, was to ask authors to
>>> click a single button once a month at most. If that level of engagement is
>>> too
>>> much to ask then maybe said authors s
Hi,
> > On Feb 19, 2025, at 10:02 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > The opposite, which was discussed at length at FOSDEM, was to ask authors to
> > click a single button once a month at most. If that level of engagement is
> > too
> > much to ask then maybe said authors should question why they
> On Feb 19, 2025, at 10:02 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> The opposite, which was discussed at length at FOSDEM, was to ask authors to
> click a single button once a month at most. If that level of engagement is
> too
> much to ask then maybe said authors should question why they in return as
> On 19 Feb 2025, at 10:25, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> Since the next commitfest is starting soon, I think for now we should
> move all entries still open in the January commitfest to the March
> commitfest. There's a bunch that are still not moved, that I know
> should be moved. For example[1]
Hi,
> I think this sounds much more reasonable than what's happening now.
> But I think we need to make the flow a bit more clear:
> 1. Add a "no interest" reason for closing.
> 2. Add a label[2]/column that specifies that an entry will be closed
> as "no interest" automatically at the end of this
Since the next commitfest is starting soon, I think for now we should
move all entries still open in the January commitfest to the March
commitfest. There's a bunch that are still not moved, that I know
should be moved. For example[1] which we discussed at FOSDEM and seems
to have a reasonable chan
Hi,
> > What if we automatically move any patches to the current commitfest if new
> > patch attachments are sent to the corresponding message thread? Heck,
> > perhaps if there are any new messages *at all* in the message thread, and
> > the commitfest entry has not been closed already, we should
Jacob Brazeal writes:
> What if we automatically move any patches to the current commitfest if new
> patch attachments are sent to the corresponding message thread? Heck,
> perhaps if there are any new messages *at all* in the message thread, and
> the commitfest entry has not been closed already,
>
>
> That's not entirely true. CFBot never runs on patches that are only in
> closed commitfests.
>
> Ofcourse the CFBot could be changed to
> behave differently, but then the question becomes how should it behave
> then? When do we want to stop running CFBot on patches?
>
> Related: What do we
On Wed, 2025-02-05 at 19:14 -0500, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I just don't think that this new policy makes sense. At least not as
> implemented.
Perhaps the answer is to go in the other direction, and the CF app
would just be a patch tracker without specific start and stop dates
(aside from a few d
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 01:29, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Peter Geoghegan writes:
> > Evidently this new policy is why my skip scan patch series wasn't
> > being tested by CI.
>
> Well no, the reason CI wasn't testing anything was the cfbot was
> broken. See nearby "CFBot is broken" thread.
That's not e
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> Evidently this new policy is why my skip scan patch series wasn't
> being tested by CI.
Well no, the reason CI wasn't testing anything was the cfbot was
broken. See nearby "CFBot is broken" thread.
> I just don't think that this new policy makes sense. At least not as
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 8:10 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> As of right now, I see that 79 CF entries have been manually pushed to
> 2025-03 (but it's hard to tell how many of those were moved before
> 2025-01 closed). 180 live entries are still in 2025-01, including
> 20 RfC ones. I think this experiment
On Tue, 2025-02-04 at 20:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I am very strong -1 on the idea of requiring a status email before a
> entry can be pushed to the next CF.
OK, I retract the idea.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
On Wed, 2025-02-05 at 01:38 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> How did you propose to submit/track the status? Would it be sent to
> the
> mailing list, or would it be entered into the CF app while adding the
> patch to the next commitfest? (The latter wouldn't have the problem
> of
> cluttering the mail
Tomas Vondra writes:
> I didn't have an opinion on this during the developer meeting, but after
> thinking about it I think having an up to date status for the patch is a
> reasonable requirement.
> It wouldn't need to be very long / detailed, it could even point to an
> earlier message in the th
On 2/4/25 21:11, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-02-03 at 12:22 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> My interpretation of this is that patches should be moved forward by
>> either an author, possibly a reviewer, possibly a committer signed up
>> for the patch, or maybe even a colleague of an aut
On Mon, 2025-02-03 at 12:22 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> My interpretation of this is that patches should be moved forward by
> either an author, possibly a reviewer, possibly a committer signed up
> for the patch, or maybe even a colleague of an author who knows that
> the
> author is on vac
> On 4 Feb 2025, at 06:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> During the developer meeting at FOSDEM last Thursday,
>
> BTW, are there minutes available from that meeting? In past years
> some notes have been posted on the wiki, but I'm failing to find
> anything right now.
They
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> During the developer meeting at FOSDEM last Thursday,
BTW, are there minutes available from that meeting? In past years
some notes have been posted on the wiki, but I'm failing to find
anything right now.
regards, tom lane
Hello!
I think it is a good idea to sent notification (at least once) to the
authors of entries. Because it is easy to miss that thread.
Best regards,
Mikhail.
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 at 13:56, Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
> > """
> > The status of this patch cannot be changed in this commitfest. You
> > must modify it in the one where it's open!
> > """
>
> Ooops, never mind.
I also thought that error was pretty silly. So it will be changed in
the next releas
Hi,
> This doesn't work unfortunately.
>
> When I try to move my patches from CF 2025-01 to CF 2025-03 I get an error:
>
> """
> The status of this patch cannot be changed in this commitfest. You
> must modify it in the one where it's open!
> """
Ooops, never mind. The application asked me to log
Hi Peter,
> CF 2025-01 has just ended, so I suggest that everyone try this now. We
> can check in perhaps two weeks whether this results in lots of stuff
> falling through the cracks or still too much stuff with unclear status
> being moved forward, and then see what that might mean going forward
46 matches
Mail list logo
