Thread: Closing out the June commitfest
We are now at the end of the originally scheduled one-month window for
the June commitfest. While the numbers look fairly bad:
Needs Review: 17, Waiting on Author: 10, Ready for Committer: 3, Committed: 29, Returned with Feedback: 12, Rejected:
5.Total: 76.
it's not quite a complete disaster, because almost all of the "needs
review" patches did actually get some review and/or had new versions
posted during the fest. We did not get them to the point of being
committable, but we did make progress. I only see about three patches
that seem to have received no attention whatsoever.
At this point we could move the open items to the September fest and
call this one good, or we could keep trying to close things out.
Personally I'd like to do the former, because we really need to spend
some effort on closing out the various open issues for 9.2, and the
commitfest seems to have sucked up all the available time of those who
might've been fixing those issues over the past month.
Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
> At this point we could move the open items to the September fest and > call this one good, or we could keep trying to close things out. > Personally I'd like to do the former, because we really need to spend > some effort on closing out the various open issues for 9.2, and the > commitfest seems to have sucked up all the available time of those who > might've been fixing those issues over the past month. > > Thoughts? Which three patches didn't get any review? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
> Which three patches didn't get any review? Or to be more specific: I'm in favor of closing out everything which has had some review. I think the three patches without any review should be dealt with case-by-case. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On 16 July 2012 01:16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > At this point we could move the open items to the September fest and > call this one good, or we could keep trying to close things out. > Personally I'd like to do the former, because we really need to spend > some effort on closing out the various open issues for 9.2, and the > commitfest seems to have sucked up all the available time of those who > might've been fixing those issues over the past month. I didn't really have the opportunity to give more feedback to any of the three patches that I'm reviewing last week, due to other commitments. I expect to be able to spend more time on review this week. I think that I stand a good chance of seeing at least one of those three committed. Hopefully the passing of the nominal deadline will help to focus things. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> Which three patches didn't get any review? > Or to be more specific: I'm in favor of closing out everything which has > had some review. I think the three patches without any review should be > dealt with case-by-case. Well, I might be wrong, but the ones that don't show any activity in the CF app are tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=818 Trim trailing NULL columns https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=840 Restrict ALTER FUNCTION CALLED ON NULL INPUT https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=854 (Note: some of the individual patches in the "logical replication" herd haven't been given individual reviews, but certainly that patchset as a whole has gotten its fair share of time and more.) None of the three above seem to me to be blocking further work, so I don't have a hard time with punting them to September. regards, tom lane
> Trim trailing NULL columns > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=840 Feh, put my name on this one for a performance test/functionality review. Someone else needs to do the code review though. > None of the three above seem to me to be blocking further work, > so I don't have a hard time with punting them to September. Yeah, we should flag them so that they get reviewed "first" out of the random patches in Sept., though. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On 16 July 2012 01:16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > We are now at the end of the originally scheduled one-month window for > the June commitfest. While the numbers look fairly bad: > > Needs Review: 17, Waiting on Author: 10, Ready for Committer: 3, Committed: 29, Returned with Feedback: 12, Rejected: 5.Total: 76. > > it's not quite a complete disaster, because almost all of the "needs > review" patches did actually get some review and/or had new versions > posted during the fest. We did not get them to the point of being > committable, but we did make progress. I only see about three patches > that seem to have received no attention whatsoever. > > At this point we could move the open items to the September fest and > call this one good, or we could keep trying to close things out. > Personally I'd like to do the former, because we really need to spend > some effort on closing out the various open issues for 9.2, and the > commitfest seems to have sucked up all the available time of those who > might've been fixing those issues over the past month. Sounds fine to me. I've been unavailable for much of this CF, so my intention is to continue with my parts of it. Meaning the reviews I was scheduled to do won't be put off until Sept. But first, I'll review the 9.2 open items list again. That's a personal point, not trying to suggest everybody else should do that. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services