On 10/23/2013 05:38 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> We say little about
> the correct aspects of a patch; it's usually a given that things not mentioned
> are satisfactory and have self-evident value. That's not such an effective
> discussion pattern when the topic is management strategies.
It's not an e
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:10:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > On 21.10.2013 16:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> What is the alternative?
>
> > If no-one really cares enough about a patch to review it, mark it as
> > "rejected, because no-one but the patch author care
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:27:13PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> When I came up with the idea of CommitFests they were supposed to be an
>> incremental improvement for us to build on. Instead it's remained
>> frozen in amber, and steadily becomi
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:27:13PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> When I came up with the idea of CommitFests they were supposed to be an
> incremental improvement for us to build on. Instead it's remained
> frozen in amber, and steadily becoming less and less effective. I've
> suggested a number of
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 10/21/2013 08:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> Supposedly, we have a policy that for each patch you submit, you ought
>> to review a patch. That right there ought to provide enough reviewers
>> for all the patches, but clearly it didn't
On 10/21/2013 08:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Supposedly, we have a policy that for each patch you submit, you ought
to review a patch. That right there ought to provide enough reviewers
for all the patches, but clearly it didn't. And I'm pretty sure that
some people (like me) looked at a lot MO
Josh,
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> In some cases the other solution is "we need to search for a better
> solution". But if you say "the proposed solution is bad" without even
> proposing criteria for a better solution, then you are *de facto* saying
> that the problem isn't importan
On 10/21/2013 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
>> Either you're proposing a solution, supporting someone else's solution,
>> or you're saying the problem isn't important. There is no fourth
>> alternative.
>
> Nonsense. Pointing out that a proposed solution isn't workable is not
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 10/21/13 9:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I am not 100% sure, but what's the point of the CF if we're not actually
>> reviewing patches that wouldn't get review without it? So I guess it's
>> not starting the next one before we've finis
Josh Berkus writes:
> Either you're proposing a solution, supporting someone else's solution,
> or you're saying the problem isn't important. There is no fourth
> alternative.
Nonsense. Pointing out that a proposed solution isn't workable is not
saying that the problem isn't important. Or are
On 10/21/13 9:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I am not 100% sure, but what's the point of the CF if we're not actually
> reviewing patches that wouldn't get review without it? So I guess it's
> not starting the next one before we've finished - which we obviously
> haven't in this case - the last one.
On 22/10/13 02:56, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 21.10.2013 16:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 10/21/13 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
The point of the CF is exactly that all
patches get at least one good round of review. Moving unreviewed
patches
to the next CF will let them just suffer the sam
2013-10-21 19:10 keltezéssel, Alvaro Herrera írta:
Boszormenyi Zoltan escribió:
I hoped that reviewing 4 patches in this CF (UNNEST, Extension templates,
DISCARD SEQUENCES, and extended RETURNING syntax) gets my huge patch reviewed.
I'm still on the hook for parts of this one (and also for Pav
Andres,
> I find it utterly ridiculous to accuse the people that *do* reviews of
> not doing anything. By doing code-level reviews reviewers teach authors
> and bystanders more about the code. Which actually can increase the
> number of review(ers) and even committers in the long run.
It would be
2013-10-21 18:25 keltezéssel, Stephen Frost írta:
Zoltan,
* Boszormenyi Zoltan (z...@cybertec.at) wrote:
I even provided a repo @github where it was broken up into pieces that can be
sanely reviewed.
You also gave the first person looking at the patch a hard time about
asking for it to be bro
On 10/21/2013 10:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Well, who are you going to get to review things that they consider
> simply bad ideas? I have no problem investing serious time in doing
> detailed reviews of patches I can see the point of, but reviews of stuff
> I think is pointless? Not really.
Tha
On 2013-10-21 10:19:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/21/2013 10:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Well, who are you going to get to review things that they consider
> > simply bad ideas? I have no problem investing serious time in doing
> > detailed reviews of patches I can see the point of, but
On 10/21/2013 06:56 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I feel guilty to complain, while not actually volunteering to be a
> commitfest manager myself, but I wish the commitfest manager would be
> more aggressive in nagging, pinging and threatening people to review
> stuff. If nothing else, always feel
On 2013-10-21 09:58:30 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> >> If no-one really cares enough about a patch to review it, mark it
> >> as "rejected, because no-one but the patch author cares". Harsh,
> >> but that's effectively what pushing to the next commitfest means
> >> anyway.
> >
> > Well, t
Boszormenyi Zoltan escribió:
> I hoped that reviewing 4 patches in this CF (UNNEST, Extension templates,
> DISCARD SEQUENCES, and extended RETURNING syntax) gets my huge patch reviewed.
I'm still on the hook for parts of this one (and also for Pavel's date
constructors stuff). I won't touch the
Tom,
>> If no-one really cares enough about a patch to review it, mark it
>> as "rejected, because no-one but the patch author cares". Harsh,
>> but that's effectively what pushing to the next commitfest means
>> anyway.
>
> Well, that could be the problem, but it's also possible that no one
> co
Zoltan,
* Boszormenyi Zoltan (z...@cybertec.at) wrote:
> I even provided a repo @github where it was broken up into pieces that can be
> sanely reviewed.
You also gave the first person looking at the patch a hard time about
asking for it to be broken up; unnecessairly, imv. Thanks for breaking
2013-10-21 17:11 keltezéssel, Robert Haas írta:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-10-21 09:15:36 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 10/21/13 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
The point of the CF is exactly that all
patches get at least one good round of review. Moving u
On 10/21/2013 05:13 PM, Mike Blackwell wrote:
> Actually, I did call them out in the thread announcing the CF Wrap Up
> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAESHdJonURj3i9HR2w4e=ohep5hx7snqyydsgyweqqa+a3d...@mail.gmail.com).
>
>
> Looking back, it may have been better to post it as a separate t
Actually, I did call them out in the thread announcing the CF Wrap Up (
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAESHdJonURj3i9HR2w4e=ohep5hx7snqyydsgyweqqa+a3d...@mail.gmail.com).
Looking back, it may have been better to post it as a separate thread, but
I'm not confident that would have made much
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-10-21 09:15:36 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 10/21/13 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > The point of the CF is exactly that all
>> > patches get at least one good round of review. Moving unreviewed patches
>> > to the next CF
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 21.10.2013 16:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> What is the alternative?
> If no-one really cares enough about a patch to review it, mark it as
> "rejected, because no-one but the patch author cares". Harsh, but that's
> effectively what pushing to the next commitfe
On 10/21/2013 03:56 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> I feel guilty to complain, while not actually volunteering to be a
> commitfest manager myself, but I wish the commitfest manager would be
> more aggressive in nagging, pinging and threatening people to review
> stuff. If nothing else, always fe
On 21.10.2013 16:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 10/21/13 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
The point of the CF is exactly that all
patches get at least one good round of review. Moving unreviewed patches
to the next CF will let them just suffer the same fate there.
Agreed. People have different vi
On 2013-10-21 09:15:36 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 10/21/13 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > The point of the CF is exactly that all
> > patches get at least one good round of review. Moving unreviewed patches
> > to the next CF will let them just suffer the same fate there.
>
> What is t
On 10/21/13 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> The point of the CF is exactly that all
> patches get at least one good round of review. Moving unreviewed patches
> to the next CF will let them just suffer the same fate there.
What is the alternative?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-h
On 2013-10-20 08:12:37 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > what will happen to patches left in pending state in the 2013-09 CF?
>
> I have moved them to the next CF. This does not mean that they are
> abandoned until then. I strongly suspect that people will be
> reviewing and committing many of them
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:42:10AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2013-10-19 17:20 keltezéssel, David Fetter írta:
> >Thanks very much to Mike Blackwell and Craig Kerstiens for their
> >persistence through what most people would consider a tedious and
> >thankless task. Thanks also to
Hi,
2013-10-19 17:20 keltezéssel, David Fetter írta:
Thanks very much to Mike Blackwell and Craig Kerstiens for their
persistence through what most people would consider a tedious and
thankless task. Thanks also to the patch submitters, reviewers and
other participants.
That the formal commitf
34 matches
Mail list logo
