Thread: CommitFest: how does handoff work for non-committer reviewers?

Folks,

This commitfest we have a number of non-committer reviewers doing 
reviewing.  When they're done with their review, how do they "handoff" 
to a committer for final check and commit?

--Josh

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 10:59 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> This commitfest we have a number of non-committer reviewers doing 
> reviewing.  When they're done with their review, how do they "handoff" 
> to a committer for final check and commit?

One approach would be to assign a committer to each patch, in addition
to a reviewer (the committer and the reviewer might be the same, of
course). Once the reviewer has signed off on the patch, the committer
can do the final check over and commit.

-Neil

Neil,

> One approach would be to assign a committer to each patch, in addition
> to a reviewer (the committer and the reviewer might be the same, of
> course). Once the reviewer has signed off on the patch, the committer
> can do the final check over and commit.

Well, one thing I think we want to do by having non-committer reviewers, is 
to not involve a committer at all if the patch is going to be sent back.  
So one thing I was thinking of is:

1) change status to "ready for committer"
2) post message to -hackers detailing the review and calling for a 
committer to check the patch
3) a committer picks it up

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 11:50 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> So one thing I was thinking of is:
> 
> 1) change status to "ready for committer"
> 2) post message to -hackers detailing the review and calling for a 
> committer to check the patch
> 3) a committer picks it up

Sure -- or else have we could have a round-robin list of committers to
whom patches in "ready for committer" status can be assigned, rather
than emailing -hackers at large.

-Neil

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Well, one thing I think we want to do by having non-committer reviewers, is 
> to not involve a committer at all if the patch is going to be sent back.  
> So one thing I was thinking of is:

> 1) change status to "ready for committer"
> 2) post message to -hackers detailing the review and calling for a 
> committer to check the patch
> 3) a committer picks it up

Well, the key point there is just the sign-off in the review message.
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> Well, one thing I think we want to do by having non-committer reviewers, is 
>> to not involve a committer at all if the patch is going to be sent back.  
>> So one thing I was thinking of is:
> 
>> 1) change status to "ready for committer"
>> 2) post message to -hackers detailing the review and calling for a 
>> committer to check the patch
>> 3) a committer picks it up
> 
> Well, the key point there is just the sign-off in the review message.

On the wiki, or on -hackers?

--Josh

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>>> 1) change status to "ready for committer"
>>> 2) post message to -hackers detailing the review and calling for a 
>>> committer to check the patch
>>> 3) a committer picks it up
>> 
>> Well, the key point there is just the sign-off in the review message.

> On the wiki, or on -hackers?

On -hackers.  All the substantive stuff should be in the mail archives;
the wiki page is only a current-status display.
        regards, tom lane