Re: Commitfest status

The first week of the commitfest is now behind us.

There are still 15 patches in "Needs Review" state, with no reviewer
assigned. Please pick a patch and review!

There are 20 patches in "Needs Review" state, with a reviewer assigned.
If you have signed up as the reviewer, please proceed with the review.

If you have submitted a patch for this commitfest, please check the
status of your patch. If it is in "Waiting for author" state, you are
expected to submit a new version of the patch, addressing any review
comments you have received. If you don't have the time to update your
patch in the next few days, please mark your patch as "Returned with
Feedback" and resubmit for the next commitfest. If your patch is in
"Waiting on Author" state, but you don't know what you should do to it,
ask for clarification.

Committers: Please pick a patch that's been marked for "Ready for
Committer", verify that it has been adequately reviewed, and proceed to
commit or bounce it back.

- Heikki

We now have 32 patches in "Needs Review" state, and 7 of those don't
have a reviewer assigned. They are:

1. Grouping Sets
2. hash join - dynamic bucket count
3. Enable WAL archiving even in standby
4. Selectivity estimation for inet operators
5. Better syntax for REINDEX
6. pgcrypto: support PGP signatures
7. pgcrypto: PGP armour headers

Out of these, the first 4 have generated a fair amount of discussion on
the list, but no-one has dared to put down their name as a reviewer.
What is the real status of these patches, are the authors really waiting
for a review at this stage? Authors: please speak up and update the
status to "Returned with Feedback" or "Waiting on Author", if you know
how to proceed. Others: If you have been involved in the discussions,
please sign up as a reviewer and make a decision on how to move forward
with the patch.

I think the latter 3 patches are missing a reviewer because no-one is
interested in them. There was some discussion on the REINDEX syntax, and
whether we want the patch at all. The pgcrypto patches have received
zero comments.

If you think that a feature is worthwhile, please sign up as a reviewer.
If these patches don't have a reviewer assigned by the end of the week,
I'm going to mark them as Rejected on the grounds that no-one cares
about them.

- Heikki

Hi

2014-09-03 13:18 GMT+02:00 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>:

> We now have 32 patches in "Needs Review" state, and 7 of those don't have
> a reviewer assigned. They are:
>
> 1. Grouping Sets

I plan to do review of Grouping Sets, but I am afraid so I cannot to do in
next two weeks.

Regards

Pavel

> 2. hash join - dynamic bucket count
> 3. Enable WAL archiving even in standby
> 4. Selectivity estimation for inet operators
> 5. Better syntax for REINDEX
> 6. pgcrypto: support PGP signatures
> 7. pgcrypto: PGP armour headers
>
> Out of these, the first 4 have generated a fair amount of discussion on
> the list, but no-one has dared to put down their name as a reviewer. What
> is the real status of these patches, are the authors really waiting for a
> review at this stage? Authors: please speak up and update the status to
> "Returned with Feedback" or "Waiting on Author", if you know how to
> proceed. Others: If you have been involved in the discussions, please sign
> up as a reviewer and make a decision on how to move forward with the patch.
>
> I think the latter 3 patches are missing a reviewer because no-one is
> interested in them. There was some discussion on the REINDEX syntax, and
> whether we want the patch at all. The pgcrypto patches have received zero
> comments.
>
> If you think that a feature is worthwhile, please sign up as a reviewer.
> If these patches don't have a reviewer assigned by the end of the week, I'm
> going to mark them as Rejected on the grounds that no-one cares about them.
>
> - Heikki
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com) wrote:
> 5. Better syntax for REINDEX
> 6. pgcrypto: support PGP signatures
> 7. pgcrypto: PGP armour headers

[...]

> I think the latter 3 patches are missing a reviewer because no-one
> is interested in them. There was some discussion on the REINDEX
> syntax, and whether we want the patch at all. The pgcrypto patches
> have received zero comments.

I'm certainly interested in the pgcrypto patches and can look at REINDEX
this weekend.

> If you think that a feature is worthwhile, please sign up as a
> reviewer. If these patches don't have a reviewer assigned by the end
> of the week, I'm going to mark them as Rejected on the grounds that
> no-one cares about them.

Looks like Joel has picked up the pgcrypto ones (though I'd still be
interested to help as a committer) and I'll get with Vik about the
REINDEX patch.

Thanks!

Stephen

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> I'm certainly interested in the pgcrypto patches and can look at REINDEX
> this weekend.

I'm thinking of picking one of these up, but I'll be on vacation next
week, and so probably won't get to it until the 15th at the earliest.
The hash join patch looks interesting.

--
Peter Geoghegan

Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com) wrote:
> > 5. Better syntax for REINDEX

> > I think the latter 3 patches are missing a reviewer because no-one
> > is interested in them. There was some discussion on the REINDEX
> > syntax, and whether we want the patch at all. The pgcrypto patches
> > have received zero comments.
>
> I'm certainly interested in the pgcrypto patches and can look at REINDEX
> this weekend.

I can take care of the reindex one --- I'm already on it anyway, waiting
for Vik to post the updated version per the respective thread.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com) wrote:
> > > 5. Better syntax for REINDEX
>
> > > I think the latter 3 patches are missing a reviewer because no-one
> > > is interested in them. There was some discussion on the REINDEX
> > > syntax, and whether we want the patch at all. The pgcrypto patches
> > > have received zero comments.
> >
> > I'm certainly interested in the pgcrypto patches and can look at REINDEX
> > this weekend.
>
> I can take care of the reindex one --- I'm already on it anyway, waiting
> for Vik to post the updated version per the respective thread.

Works for me. I've marked you as reviewer.

I'll check out some of the 'ready for committer' ones.

Thanks!

Stephen

Another commitfest week has passed, and here are still. There are now 24
patches in "Needs Review" state, and 8 in "Ready for Committer". I'm not
paying attention to the "Waiting on Author" patches - once we're close
to zero on the other patches, those will be bounced back.

The good news is that all but two patches have a reviewer assigned. The
bad news is that the rest don't seem to moving graduating from the Needs
Review state.

Reviewers: please review your patches. And then pick another patch to
review; one of the two that have no reviewer assigned yet, or some other
patch. It is only good to have more than on reviewer for the same patch.

Patch authors: if your patch is not getting reviewed in a timely
fashion, in a few days, please send an off-list note to the reviewer and
ask what the status is. The reviewer might not realize that you're waiting.
- Heikki

On 10.9.2014 22:39, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The bad news is that the rest don't seem to moving graduating from the
> Needs Review state.

ISTM that many patches

(a) in 'needs review' actually have a review, or are being thoroughly
discussed

(b) in 'waiting on author' are not really waiting, because the author
already responded / posted a new version of the patch

Except that the patch status was not updated, whis makes it really
difficult to spot patches that currently need a review :-(

regards
Tomas

On 11/09/14 18:59, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 10.9.2014 22:39, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> The bad news is that the rest don't seem to moving graduating from the
>> Needs Review state.
>
> ISTM that many patches
>
> (b) in 'waiting on author' are not really waiting, because the author
> already responded / posted a new version of the patch
>
> Except that the patch status was not updated, whis makes it really
> difficult to spot patches that currently need a review :-(
>

I think that still means patch is 'waiting for author' as author is
responsible for changing this.

--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On 11.9.2014 21:14, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 11/09/14 18:59, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 10.9.2014 22:39, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> The bad news is that the rest don't seem to moving graduating from the
>>> Needs Review state.
>>
>> ISTM that many patches
>>
>> (b) in 'waiting on author' are not really waiting, because the author
>> already responded / posted a new version of the patch
>>
>> Except that the patch status was not updated, whis makes it really
>> difficult to spot patches that currently need a review :-(
>>
>
> I think that still means patch is 'waiting for author' as author is
> responsible for changing this.

In that case it was meant as a plea to the authors to update this ;-)

Tomas

Hi,

I've update my entry.
[rounding up time value less than its unit]
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1507

regards,
-----------------
Tomonari Katsumata

(2014/09/12 7:03), Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 11.9.2014 21:14, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 11/09/14 18:59, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> On 10.9.2014 22:39, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>> The bad news is that the rest don't seem to moving graduating from the
>>>> Needs Review state.
>>>
>>> ISTM that many patches
>>>
>>> (b) in 'waiting on author' are not really waiting, because the author
>>> already responded / posted a new version of the patch
>>>
>>> Except that the patch status was not updated, whis makes it really
>>> difficult to spot patches that currently need a review :-(
>>>
>>
>> I think that still means patch is 'waiting for author' as author is
>> responsible for changing this.
>
> In that case it was meant as a plea to the authors to update this ;-)
>
>
> Tomas
>
>

CF3 is actually over for a couple of days, wouldn't it be better to
bounce back patches marked as "waiting on author" and work on the rest
needing review?
--
Michael

On 09/20/2014 06:54 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> CF3 is actually over for a couple of days,

There are different opinions on when a commitfest is "over". In my
opinion, the point of a commitfest is that every patch that someone
submits gets enough review so that the patch author knows what he needs
to do next. It's not determined by a date, but by progress.

> wouldn't it be better to
> bounce back patches marked as "waiting on author" and work on the rest
> needing review?

Yep, it's time to do that.

I have now marked those patches that have been in "Waiting on Author"
state, but have already been reviewed to some extent, as "Returned with
Feedback".

I kept a two patches:

* Flush buffers belonging to unlogged tables, and
* Function returning the timestamp of last transaction

The first one is a bug-fix, and the second one is stalled by a bug-fix
that hasn't been applied yet. We should deal with them ASAP.

There are still plenty of patches in "Needs review" state. We got below
20 at one point, but are back to 24 now. Reviewers: Please *review a
patch*! We need to get closure to every patch.

Patch authors: Nag the reviewer of your patch. If that doesn't help,
contact other people who you think would be qualified to review your
patch, and ask them nicely to review your patch.

- Heikki