Re: commit fest status and release timeline

Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
Total: 114.

We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which would
be similar to the previous few commit fests. So decent job so far.

Which brings us to important news. The core team has agreed on a
release timeline:

- Mar 15 end commit fest
- Apr 15 feature freeze
- May 15 beta

This is similar to the last few years, so it shouldn't come as a shock
to anyone.

Let's use the remaining two weeks to give all patches in the commit fest
fair consideration and a decent review. The time to reject or postpone
patches will inevitably come in the time between the end of the commit
fest and feature freeze. Note that it is everyone's individual
responsibility to move their favorite patch forward.

On 03/01/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
> Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
> Total: 114.
>
> We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which would
> be similar to the previous few commit fests. So decent job so far.

So, other than Hstore2/JSONB and Logical Changesets, what are the
big/difficult patches left?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

On 03/01/2014 07:50 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 03/01/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
>> Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
>> Total: 114.
>>
>> We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which would
>> be similar to the previous few commit fests. So decent job so far.
> So, other than Hstore2/JSONB and Logical Changesets, what are the
> big/difficult patches left?

For me, I'd really like to see the reduced locks on ALTER TABLE.

--
Vik

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
> On 03/01/2014 07:50 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 03/01/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
>>> Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
>>> Total: 114.
>>>
>>> We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which would
>>> be similar to the previous few commit fests. So decent job so far.
>> So, other than Hstore2/JSONB and Logical Changesets, what are the
>> big/difficult patches left?
>
> For me, I'd really like to see the reduced locks on ALTER TABLE.
The patch by Peter to improve test coverage for client programs. This
is helpful for QE/QA teams evaluating Postgres, and it could be
extended for other things like replication test suite as well as far
as I understood.
Regards,
--
Michael

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>
wrote:
> > On 03/01/2014 07:50 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> On 03/01/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>> Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
> >>> Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
> >>> Total: 114.
> >>>
> >>> We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which
would
> >>> be similar to the previous few commit fests. So decent job so far.
> >> So, other than Hstore2/JSONB and Logical Changesets, what are the
> >> big/difficult patches left?
> >
> > For me, I'd really like to see the reduced locks on ALTER TABLE.
> The patch by Peter to improve test coverage for client programs. This
> is helpful for QE/QA teams evaluating Postgres, and it could be
> extended for other things like replication test suite as well as far
> as I understood.
>

+1

--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com
>> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello

On 1.3.2014 18:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
> Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected:
> 4. Total: 114.
>
> We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which
> would be similar to the previous few commit fests. So decent job so
> far.

I'm wondering what is the best way to select a patch to review. I mean,
there are many patches with "needs review" (and often no reviewer) just
one or two comments, but when I checked the email archives there's often
a lot people discussing it.

Do we have a list of patches that didn't get a proper review yet / badly
need another one?

What about improving the commitfest page by displaying a number of
related e-mail messages / number of people involved? Shouldn't be
difficult to get this from the mail archives ...

regards
Tomas

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:

> On 1.3.2014 18:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
> > Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected:
> > 4. Total: 114.
> >
> > We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which
> > would be similar to the previous few commit fests. So decent job so
> > far.
>
> I'm wondering what is the best way to select a patch to review. I mean,
> there are many patches with "needs review" (and often no reviewer) just
> one or two comments, but when I checked the email archives there's often
> a lot people discussing it.
>
> Do we have a list of patches that didn't get a proper review yet / badly
> need another one?
>
> What about improving the commitfest page by displaying a number of
> related e-mail messages / number of people involved? Shouldn't be
> difficult to get this from the mail archives ...
>

I have some code for that part, that needs a coupe of rounds of final
hacking and polish. I've had many targets for it, but right now the target
is to be done before pgcon, so we can put it in play for the next set of
commitfests. It's not going to happen for *this* one, and we don't want to
distrupt the flow even more by making big changes to the tooling in the
middle of it.

That said, there is definitely a need :)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/