Re: Commitfest II CLosed

2013-10-21 17:11 keltezéssel, Robert Haas írta:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> 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 will let them just suffer the same fate there.
>>> What is the alternative?
>> 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.
> Yeah. There were a huge number of patches in this CommitFest that sat
> around in the waiting on author state for hugely long periods of time.
> One of the critical functions of the CommitFest manager(s) IMV is to
> make sure that patches that are in that state get pushed to Returned
> with Feedback so that it's more obvious which things are still alive
> and kicking. That really wasn't done until about a week before the
> end of the CommitFest, when I stepped in and did some of it. But that
> really needs to be more of an ongoing process.
>
> 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 MORE patches than they
> themselves submitted. I think auditing who is not contributing in
> that area and finding tactful ways to encourage them to contribute
> would be a very useful service to the project.

I wanted to get to this point, too.

I hoped that reviewing 4 patches in this CF (UNNEST, Extension templates,
DISCARD SEQUENCES, and extended RETURNING syntax) gets my huge patch reviewed.

I even provided a repo @github where it was broken up into pieces that can be sanely reviewed.
It still wasn't enough. Even Michael Meskes (ECPG is his pet project) and the guy @Fujitsu
who contacted me privately and expressed interest in this patch didn't chime in.
As a social experiment, the CF looks like a clear failure from this seat of mine. (Sorry.)

>
> Finally, I think we need to have some discussion of the patches that
> are ready for committer but got punted, and see if we can figure out
> whether any committer has plans to look at them. Those patches are:
>
> Extension Templates - I think Peter Eisentraut commented on this one
> at some stage, but I'm not sure if he's planning to work further on
> it.
> UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple functions - Heikki
> did some work on this, maybe he's planning to commit it?
> Numeric Aggregates Performance Improvement - I looked at this one
> previously so should probably look it over again.
> Statistics collection for CLUSTER command - Noah recommended rejecting
> this on performance grounds. Maybe we should do that.
> simple date time constructors - Alvaro previously looked at this, but
> I don't know whether he plans to work on it further.
> simple LO API - no committer interest to my knowledge
> Bugfix for timeout in LDAP connection parameter resolution - I think
> Peter Eisentraut is planning to commit this
>

--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/