Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug  7, 2013 at 01:48:06PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 
> > Well, reviewers on the bottom was just for 9.3 or 9.4, but the final
> > goal was to get reviewers who modified patches credited with the release
> > note items.  I asked how that was to be accomplished, and suggested that
> > the only practical way would be for every committer to check the patch
> > chain to see who else had modified the patch.  
> 
> Actually, it's not that hard.  Someone who modified the patch is going
> to post it to -hackers, and we have that all in the archives.  Michael
> and I are combing through the threads from CF1 now to get that list;
> you're talking a few hours effort at most.

Michael who?

9.4 CF1?  Where are you recording the names?  In the commitfest app?

> Of course, the actual patch author/committers need to verify that these
> people actually did a lot of *useful* work, but that isn't much effort
> from them.

OK, so the process is independent of commit activity. You realize that
if someone significantly modifies a patch we already have them in the
commit message as an author and on the release note item, right?  So you
are really looking for reviews that modify the patch but not enough for
a committer to include their name in the commit message as an author.

> > You suggested something about the commit-fest-manager doing it, and I
> > couldn't see how that would help because it has to be in the commit
> > message at the time the release notes are being written.  
> 
> Why?  You didn't provide *any* justification as to why the release notes
> could not include input *in addition to* commit messages.  In fact, the
> release notes *do* incorporate additional input, every year.

Yes, we can always add --- the problem is getting the content to add.

> > You said our
> > release note writing process was not written stone, and that we had to
> > do whatever it takes to get those names on the items in the release
> > notes.  At that point I pointed out that there was no consideration of
> > the effort necessary to accomplish this, and that's how we got here
> > today.
> 
> The only additional effort I'm asking of you, Bruce, is to accept
> patches on the release notes.  That really doesn't seem like an
> unreasonable request.

Anyone can commit patches to the release notes.  I am unlikely to do it,
as I lack confidence in the process, for reasons already outlined.

> > Yes, that is somewhat easy in that we can get the names from the
> > commit-fest app, but it doesn't include reviewers who replied via email
> > but did not record their names on the commit-fest app.  I can tell you
> > from my release note writing experience that a partial job in this area
> > is likely to get lots of negative feedback from people who are
> > excluded.
> 
> That's why it'll be a social process.  Next week I'll be posting a list
> of patches and reviewers from CF1 to this list for other people to
> correct and expand.  Just like the code itself, if everybody reviews the
> list of reviewers, it'll be as good as we can get it.

OK, at least that is a plan.  Is that your plan for the future too?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +