Thread: Moving on to close the current CF 2015-02

Hi all,

Visibly there is no commit fest manager this time (was I?), and people
may think that I still am the CFM for 2015-02, continuously after
2014-12 and that I am severely slacking on my duties. Honestly I
thought that I was not and that it was clear enoug... Still, biting
the bullet to make things move on, should I launch a VACUUM FULL on
the current entries of the CF to brush up things that could get in
9.5? The "current" CF officially finished two weeks ago.

Regards,
-- 
Michael

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:22:11AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Visibly there is no commit fest manager this time (was I?), and people
> may think that I still am the CFM for 2015-02, continuously after
> 2014-12 and that I am severely slacking on my duties. Honestly I
> thought that I was not and that it was clear enoug... Still, biting
> the bullet to make things move on, should I launch a VACUUM FULL on
> the current entries of the CF to brush up things that could get in
> 9.5? The "current" CF officially finished two weeks ago.

Usually the last commitfest is double the typical length.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + Everyone has their own god. +

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:22:11AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Visibly there is no commit fest manager this time (was I?), and people
>> may think that I still am the CFM for 2015-02, continuously after
>> 2014-12 and that I am severely slacking on my duties. Honestly I
>> thought that I was not and that it was clear enoug... Still, biting
>> the bullet to make things move on, should I launch a VACUUM FULL on
>> the current entries of the CF to brush up things that could get in
>> 9.5? The "current" CF officially finished two weeks ago.
>
> Usually the last commitfest is double the typical length.

Oh, OK. So this lets 3 weeks...
-- 
Michael

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:22:11AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Visibly there is no commit fest manager this time (was I?), and people
>>> may think that I still am the CFM for 2015-02, continuously after
>>> 2014-12 and that I am severely slacking on my duties. Honestly I
>>> thought that I was not and that it was clear enoug... Still, biting
>>> the bullet to make things move on, should I launch a VACUUM FULL on
>>> the current entries of the CF to brush up things that could get in
>>> 9.5? The "current" CF officially finished two weeks ago.
>>
>> Usually the last commitfest is double the typical length.
>
> Oh, OK. So this lets 3 weeks...

Three weeks later, here we are. There are still 31 patches in "Need
Review" state, 16 in "Waiting on Author" state and 9 marked as "Ready
for committer".

To committers, here are the patches that seem on top of the list:
- Do not vacuum pgbench tables if they do not exist when pgbench -f given
- Abbreviated key support for Datum sorts
- transforms
- Join pushdown support for foreign tables
- REINDEX xxx VERBOSE
- regrole and regnamespace
- pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces (Extend base backup to
include symlink file used to restore symlinks)
- catalog view to pg_hba.conf file

Here are two patches that did not attract much attention and I think
could be dropped right away (got involved in them so that's perhaps
easier to say):
- GIN fillfactor
- Turn recovery.conf parameters into GUCs

I would recommend as well the authors with patches in state "Waiting
on author" to update their patch as well accordingly to what their
state is.

@Magnus: having the possibility to mark a patch as "returned with
feedback" without bumping it to the next CF automatically would be
cool to being moving on.
Regards,
-- 
Michael

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> @Magnus: having the possibility to mark a patch as "returned with
> feedback" without bumping it to the next CF automatically would be
> cool to being moving on.
Meh. "cool to have to help moving on".
-- 
Michael

On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 17 April 2015 at 08:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> To committers, here are the patches that seem on top of the list:
> I'm pretty sure Committers are the people to decide which patches can be
> committed, but thanks for the opinion.

Note the word "seem", my previous statement being written only based
on the status of the patches already in the CF app and nothing else,
where those patches have visibly already been reviewed and waiting for
committer input.
Thanks,
-- 
Michael

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> > @Magnus: having the possibility to mark a patch as "returned with
>>> > feedback" without bumping it to the next CF automatically would be
>>> > cool to being moving on.
>>> Meh. "cool to have to help moving on".
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, it's at the top of my list of priorities once I get some time to
>> spend on community stuff. Hopefully I can get around to it next week. There
>> is a small chance I can do it before then, but it is indeed small...
>
>
> My apologies for that being delayed even longe rthan that. I've finally
> pushed the changes that:
>
> * Renames the current "returned with feedback" to "moved to next cf"
> * Adds a new status, "returned with feedback", that is the same as
> "rejected" in everything except the label (meaning it closes the patch out,
> but does *not* move it to the next CF).
>
> This was at least my understanding of the consensus :)

Thanks a lot for this! This looks neat to me.
-- 
Michael