Re: Considering Gerrit for CFs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 2/8/13 5:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> But do you have any actual proof that the problem is in "we
>> loose reviewers because we're relying on email"?
>
> Here is one: Me.
>
> Just yesterday I downloaded a piece of software that was previously
> unknown to me from GitHub and found a bug.  Within 15 minutes or so I
> had fixed the bug, made a fork, sent a pull request.  Today I read, the
> fix was merged last night, and I'm happy.

I know quite a bit using git for my own work, but I haven't the
foggiest idea how to make a fork (unless that is the same as making a
branch?) or to send a pull request, and bet it would take me more than
15 minutes to figure it out and make sure I understood them and did it
correctly.  Surely using any specific tool would make things easier
for that pool of people who are already well versed in that tool.




> How would this go with PostgreSQL?  You can use the bug form on the web
> site, but you can't attach any code,

Should it allow you to attach code?  If you have code to attach,
should it instead go to hackers?

Or send it to bugs by email rather than using the form? (Some parts of
the web site sound like the form is preferred over direct email to
bugs, while others make it sound that both are equal)


> so the bug will just linger and
> ultimately put more burden on a core contributor to deal with the
> minutiae of developing, testing, and committing a trivial fix and
> sending feedback to the submitter.  Or the user could take the high road
> and develop and patch and submit it.  Just make sure it's in context
> diff format!  Search the wiki if you don't know how to do that!  Send it
> to -hackers, your email will be held for moderation.  We won't actually
> do anything with your patch,

That sounds more like a feature submission.  My experience with bugs
is that I send a patch or just a code snippet, either to hackers or
bugs, and then someone, usually Tom, rewrites it to be better and to
work for corner-cases, then commits it.  Only for complicated bugs
that are arguably not really bugs but rather mal-features that need to
be redesigned would I be asked to use the commitfest process at all.



> but we will tell you to add it to that
> commitfest app over there.  You need to sign up for an account to use
> that.  We will deal with your patch in one or two months.  But only if
> you review another patch.  And you should sign up for that other mailing
> list, to make sure you're doing it right.  Chances are, the first review
> you're going to get is that your patch doesn't apply anymore, but which
> time you will have lost interest in the patch anyway.

This too does not sound like how bug reports actually work.  Nor does
it sound like how very simple enhancements work (i.e. several of my
tab-completion enhancements or doc changes), which are usually just
summarily committed regardless of the commitfest cycle or whether I
review other patches.

You are comparing making a drive-by contribution to one project, to
being part of the developer community of a different one.

Cheers,

Jeff