Re: Commitfest problems - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Mark Cave-Ayland |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Commitfest problems |
Date | |
Msg-id | 54904A83.302@ilande.co.uk Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Commitfest problems (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On 16/12/14 13:44, David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:09:34AM +0000, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >> On 16/12/14 07:33, David Rowley wrote: >> >>> On 16 December 2014 at 18:18, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com >>> <mailto:josh@agliodbs.com>> wrote: >>> >>> > Man. You're equating stuff that's not the same. You didn't get your way >>> > (and I'm tentatively on your side onthat one) and take that to imply >>> > that we don't want more reviewers. >>> >>> During that thread a couple people said that novice reviewers added no >>> value to the review process, and nobody argued with them then. I've >>> also been told this to my face at pgCon, and when I've tried organizing >>> patch review events. I got the message, which is why I stopped trying >>> to get new reviewers. >>> >>> And frankly: if we're opposed to giving credit to patch reviewers, we're >>> opposed to having them. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd just like to add something which might be flying below the radar of >>> more senior people. There are people out there (ike me) working on >>> PostgreSQL more for the challenge and perhaps the love of the product, >>> who make absolutely zero money out of it. For these people getting >>> credit where it's due is very important. I'm pretty happy with this at >>> the moment and I can't imagine any situation where not crediting >>> reviewers would be beneficial to anyone. >> >> This is exactly where I am at the moment, having previously been more >> involved with the development side of PostgreSQL during the past. >> >> Personally having a credit as a patch reviewer isn't particularly >> important to me, since mail archives are good enough these days that if >> people do query my contributions towards projects then I can point them >> towards any reasonable search engine. >> >> The biggest constraint on my ability to contribute is *time*. >> >> Imagine the situation as a reviewer that I am currently on the mailing >> list for two well-known open source projects and I also have a day job >> and a home life to contend with. >> >> For the spare time that I have for review, one of these projects >> requires me to download attachment(s), apply them to a git tree >> (hopefully it still applies), run a complete "make check" regression >> series, try and analyse a patch which will often reference parts to >> which I have no understanding, and then write up a coherent email and >> submit it to the mailing list. Realistically to do all this and provide >> a review that is going to be of use to a committer is going to take a >> minimum of 1-2 hours, and even then there's a good chance that I've >> easily missed obvious bugs in the parts of the system I don't understand >> well. >> >> For the second project, I can skim through my inbox daily picking up >> specific areas I work on/are interested in, hit reply to add a couple of >> lines of inline comments to the patch and send feedback to the >> author/list in just a few minutes. > > With utmost respect, you've missed something really important in the > second that the first has, and frankly isn't terribly onerous: does an > actual system produce working code? In the PostgreSQL case, you can > stop as soon as you discover that the patch doesn't apply to master or > that ./configure doesn't work, or that the code doesn't compile: > elapsed time <= 5 minutes. Or you can keep moving until you have made > progress for the time you've allotted. As per my previous email, it's generally quite rare for a developer to post non-working code to a list (in some cases someone will send a quick reply pointing that this needs to be rebased because it appears to reference an old API). From what I see in PostgreSQL this mostly happens because of bitrot between the time the patch was posted to the list and the actual commitfest itself - so in one way the commitfest system exacerbates this particular problem further. > But the bigger issue, as others have pointed out, has never been a > technical one. It's motivating people whose time is already much in > demand to spend some of it on reviewing. > > I wasn't discouraged by the preliminary patch review process or any > feedback I got. My absence lately has more to do with other demands > on my time. I am completely in agreement with you here. My approach is more along the lines of that I know access to long periods of time to review patches is often impractical, and so how can the review process be made more time-efficient in order to allow you, me and other people in similar time-limited environments to be able to participate more? ATB, Mark.
pgsql-hackers by date: