Re: Commitfest II CLosed - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/10/13 02:56, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:<br /></div><blockquote
cite="mid:52653289.2030207@vmware.com"type="cite">On 21.10.2013 16:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote: <br /><blockquote
type="cite">On10/21/13 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote: <br /><blockquote type="cite">The point of the CF is exactly that
all<br /> patches get at least one good round of review. Moving unreviewed patches <br /> to the next CF will let them
justsuffer the same fate there. <br /></blockquote></blockquote><br /> Agreed. People have different views on what the
purposeof a commitfest is, but IMO the point is to make sure that every patch submitted gets at least a cursory review
ina timely fashion. Pushing patches to the next one because no-one has gotten around to review them is a failure. <br
/><br/><blockquote type="cite">What is the alternative? <br /></blockquote><br /> If no-one really cares enough about a
patchto review it, mark it as "rejected, because no-one but the patch author cares". Harsh, but that's effectively what
pushingto the next commitfest means anyway. Better to be honest about it. At least that way the author can promote the
patch'svirtues more on the mailing list, or personally contact someone who might be interested, to get some attention,
andresubmit if he thinks that it might have a chance on the next commitfest. <br /><br /> Another alternative is to
pushharder to make sure that every patch gets some review. I don't know how to accomplish that. Robert Haas did a great
jobat that in the first few commitfests (IIRC), but only because he personally spent a lot of time not only managing
thecommitfest but actually reviewing the patches that no-one else bothered with. That's a great way to make sure that
everypatch gets some attention, but I don't think we have any takers for that role. <br /><br /> I feel guilty to
complain,while not actually volunteering to be a commitfest manager myself, but I wish the commitfest manager would be
moreaggressive in nagging, pinging and threatening people to review stuff. If nothing else, always feel free to nag me
:-).Josh tried that with the infamous Slacker List, but that backfired. Rather than posting a public list of shame, I
thinkit would work better to send short off-list nag emails, or chat via IM. Something like "Hey, you've signed up to
reviewthis. Any progress?". Or "Hey, could you take a look at X please? No-one else seems to care about it." <br /><br
/>- Heikki <br /><br /><br /></blockquote> Hmm...<br /><br /> From at different area, but I think it may apply
here...<br/><br /> When I was running a magazine for a computer user group, I regularly phoned people up to encourage
themto write articles, I think I managed to get 50% of them to contribute articles.<br /><br /> In the pg context: this
mightmean contacting patch submitters & potential reviewers, listening to their moans... and encouraging them.
Sometimesthey may simply need some advice, or to be put in contact with someone who can explain something that is
obscureto them - it might be a simple mental block, in someone that is otherwise extremely competent. A lot of this
shouldbe done behind the scenes, the idea is more to empower than to shame (I'm sure that could be phrased better!).
<br/><br /><br /> Cheers,<br /> Gavin<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br
/><br/><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />