Thread: CommitFest progress
Of the 83 patches in this CommitFest, there are currently 35 that are marked as needing review, 23 that are waiting on author, 7 that are ready for committer, 11 that are committed, 5 that are returned with feedback, and 2 that are rejected. Since we're now supposedly in the last week of this month-long CommitFest, that doesn't bode well. I have no problem continuing to work on the patches that are ready for committer, and the people whose patches are marked as in need of review because they have never been reviewed (such as, cough, my background workers round three patch) surely deserve to get one. But I do have a problem with the fact that no concerted effort has been made to mark patches that are clearly nowhere near ready for commit, or which have been waiting on the author for extended periods of time, as returned with feedback. The CommitFest is supposed to be a time to *commit the patches that are ready to be committed*, not to wait indefinitely for them to become ready to be committed. If we make it into the latter, then nobody should be surprised when CommitFests never end. I therefore propose that we start by marking all of the patches that are currently Waiting on Author as Returned with Feedback. Most of them have been that way for a long time. Then, I think all of the people who are listed as reviewers need to take a look at the current state of their patches and decide whether or not they are reasonably ready to be committed. If they are, then they should be marked Ready for Committer. If they're not, but they've had at least one good thorough review, then they should also be marked Returned with Feedback; they can be resubmitted for the next CommitFest for further review. If they haven't had a good thorough review yet, then the people who signed up to review should, uh, hurry up and do that. If they can't, they should remove their name from the patch and we should seek other volunteers. Finally, we need to find reviewers for the patches that still don't have them, or that lack them once the names of people who aren't really going to review get removed. I have certainly reviewed more patches this CommitFest than I submitted by quite a bit, but I'm still willing to help with a few more if that's needed. I can't, however, do all of them, especially if I'm on the hook to also commit everything I review once it becomes ready. Thanks, -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > The CommitFest is supposed to be a time to > *commit the patches that are ready to be committed*, not to wait > indefinitely for them to become ready to be committed. I beg to differ. Commit Fests are the time when patch authors know they can get feedback from the community and in particular committers. So as a patch author it's best if you can arrange your schedule and be ready to submit new versions as asked, or comment on your design choices and trade-offs, etc. Patch commit can happen whenever in the cycle at the discretion of the committer. Commit Fest are all about *review* and *feedback*. > I therefore propose that we start by marking all of the patches that > are currently Waiting on Author as Returned with Feedback. Most of > them have been that way for a long time. That seems fair. > Then, I think all of the people who are listed as reviewers need to > take a look at the current state of their patches and decide whether > or not they are reasonably ready to be committed. If they are, then I've been distracted away from this commit fest but should be able to get back to it now. Will post soon about the patches I enrolled myself with. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> The CommitFest is supposed to be a time to >> *commit the patches that are ready to be committed*, not to wait >> indefinitely for them to become ready to be committed. > > I beg to differ. Commit Fests are the time when patch authors know they > can get feedback from the community and in particular committers. > > So as a patch author it's best if you can arrange your schedule and be > ready to submit new versions as asked, or comment on your design choices > and trade-offs, etc. > > Patch commit can happen whenever in the cycle at the discretion of the > committer. Commit Fest are all about *review* and *feedback*. Sure, I don't disagree with any of that. >> I therefore propose that we start by marking all of the patches that >> are currently Waiting on Author as Returned with Feedback. Most of >> them have been that way for a long time. > > That seems fair. > >> Then, I think all of the people who are listed as reviewers need to >> take a look at the current state of their patches and decide whether >> or not they are reasonably ready to be committed. If they are, then > > I've been distracted away from this commit fest but should be able to > get back to it now. Will post soon about the patches I enrolled myself > with. Thanks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > I therefore propose that we start by marking all of the patches that > are currently Waiting on Author as Returned with Feedback. Most of > them have been that way for a long time. Hearing no objections, I went through and did this, but skipped some that had recent activity, and instead marked one as ready for committer on the basis that the reviewer thought it was in good shape except for needing test case revision. Together with today's rash of commits, this means that we've now disposed of half the patches in the CommitFest. IOW, we have a lot of work left to do. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company