Thread: 2016-03 Commitfest
The 2016-03 commitfest is officially in progress! There are currently a lot of patches waiting for review but with no reviewers: Needs review: 97 Needs *reviewer*: 58 Please check the "needs reviewer" list (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/?reviewer=-2) for patches to review. The committers need our help to work through this enormous load of patches. If this is you: Waiting on Author: 16 Then please post an updated patch as soon as possible so it can be reviewed. Some of these patches have not seen any activity from the author in a long time. The good news is we are already 14% done with the CF: Committed: 17 Rejected: 2 Returned with Feedback: 1 I'll post a status update on this thread at least once a week and more often as needed. Going forward there will be more detail on individual patches that are not making progress for whatever reason. Let's get reviewing! -- -David david@pgmasters.net
We're are now one third of the way through the 2016-03 Commitfest. There are still some patches left that need review but have no reviewer (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/?reviewer=-2) though a lot have been picked up in the last week. Needs review: 56 Needs *reviewer*: 15 (was 58 last week) There were a number of patches that were marked as "needs review" but were actually "waiting for author" as far as I could see. If your patch is in this state it would be good if you could give an idea when you will be able to supply a new patch or otherwise address concerns raised in the thread. Waiting on Author: 29 The closed patches are up significantly since last week and the good news is that most of them were committed. 36% of the patches are now closed. Committed: 46 Rejected: 4 Returned with Feedback: 4 I will continue to respond individually to threads that seem idle or have issues that need to be resolved. Please do not hesitate to contact me about about any concerns that you might have regarding the Commitfest process. -- -David david@pgmasters.net
We are now nearly two thirds of the way through the 2016-03 Commitfest. There are still some patches left that need review but have no reviewer (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/?status=1&reviewer=-2) and this hasn't changed much since last week. Needs review: 55 (was 56 last week) Needs *reviewer*: 12 (was 15 last week) There are still a lot of patches that need review but the good news is that nearly all of them have seen some level of review. Waiting on Author: 11 (was 29 last week) The number of patches waiting on author has gone down quite a bit but that was somewhat on account of idle patches being closed and a few that needed to be marked for review. 49% of the patches are now closed and I suspect that the low hanging fruit has been cleared away and we are left with more complicated patches. Committed: 56 (was 46 last week) Rejected: 5 (was 4 last week) Returned with Feedback: 11 (was 4 last week) ** PATCH AUTHORS PLEASE READ ** If you have been pinged on a thread that is "waiting for author" and do not respond by next Tuesday your patch will likely be closed. We are now in crunch time with two weeks until the end of the CF and three weeks until feature freeze. If you have extenuating circumstances please make them clear on the thread so everyone knows the status. Thanks, -- -David david@pgmasters.net
Hi, The COPY RAW patch seems to have two entries in the commitfest. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/223/ and https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/547/ Are those about the same patch? Andreas
On 3/18/16 11:25 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > The COPY RAW patch seems to have two entries in the commitfest. > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/223/ and > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/547/ > > Are those about the same patch? Indeed they are - good catch! I've responded on the thread and closed #547. -- -David david@pgmasters.net
The 2016-03 commitfest is nearly over! There are still a number of patches in need of review and a few that still have no reviewer (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/?status=1&reviewer=-2). Needs review: 28 (was 55 last week) Needs *reviewer*: 4 (was 12 last week) If you are signed up to review a patch please do that as soon as possible or try to find somebody else who can take your place. Waiting on Author: 16 (was 11 last week) If your patch is in this state then please respond to questions or post a new patch *as soon as possible*. With a tight deadline for feature freeze patches that have not been addressed/updated will likely be closed on Friday. Committed: 70 (was 56 last week) Rejected: 5 (unchanged since last week) Returned with Feedback: 18 (was 11 last week) So we are 63% done with the commitfest with just a few days to go. Let's get cracking and see what we can get done before Friday! Thanks, -- -David david@pgmasters.net
Here's where we stand on the last day of the 2016-03 commitfest: Needs review: 7 (was 28 last week) Waiting on Author: 4 (was 16 last week) Ready for Committer: 12 Committed: 92 Moved to next CF: 3 Rejected: 7 Returned with Feedback: 23 So the commitfest is 84% complete with less than twelve hours to go. If there's anything you can do to get patches into "ready for committer" status in the next few hours please do so. I'd like to call out a couple of patches that have been in need of review for a while: Partial sort: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/409/ Speeding up GIN build with parallel workers https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/527/ At the expiration of the CF all patches will be closed per the policies laid out in [1] unless granted an extension by the release team. -David david@pgmasters.net [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoY56w5FOzeEo%2Bi48qehL%2BBsVTwy-Q1M0xjUhUCwgGW7-Q@mail.gmail.com
David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
> So the commitfest is 84% complete with less than twelve hours to go.
Have we set a particular time-of-day for closing the CF, and if so
what is it exactly?
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
> So the commitfest is 84% complete with less than twelve hours to go.
Have we set a particular time-of-day for closing the CF, and if so
what is it exactly?
And timezone? :)
I think traditionally it's really been up to the CF manager for what's convenient. Which I think has usually meant "in the morning the day after in the timezone of the CF manager", which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
On 4/8/16 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes: >> So the commitfest is 84% complete with less than twelve hours to go. > > Have we set a particular time-of-day for closing the CF, and if so > what is it exactly? From the referenced email: "Accordingly, the release management has decided that all feature patches destined for PostgreSQL 9.6 must be committed no later than April 8, 2016. Any patch not committed prior to 2016-04-09 00:00:00 GMT may not be committed to PostgreSQL 9.6 unless (a) it is a bug fix, (b) it represents essential cleanup of a previously-committed patch, or (c) the release management team has approved an extension to the deadline for that particular patch." http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoY56w5FOzeEo%2Bi48qehL%2BBsVTwy-Q1M0xjUhUCwgGW7-Q@mail.gmail.com -- -David david@pgmasters.net
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:06 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 4/8/16 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes: >>> So the commitfest is 84% complete with less than twelve hours to go. >> >> Have we set a particular time-of-day for closing the CF, and if so >> what is it exactly? > > From the referenced email: > > "Accordingly, the release management has decided that all > feature patches destined for PostgreSQL 9.6 must be committed no later > than April 8, 2016. Any patch not committed prior to 2016-04-09 > 00:00:00 GMT may not be committed to PostgreSQL 9.6 unless (a) it is a > bug fix, (b) it represents essential cleanup of a previously-committed > patch, or (c) the release management team has approved an extension to > the deadline for that particular patch." IOW, the deadline is 8pm US/Eastern time, or about 9 hours from now. Let's try not to introduce more bugs in the next 9 hours than we have in the preceding 9 months. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:06 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> On 4/8/16 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
>>> So the commitfest is 84% complete with less than twelve hours to go.
>>
>> Have we set a particular time-of-day for closing the CF, and if so
>> what is it exactly?
>
> From the referenced email:
>
> "Accordingly, the release management has decided that all
> feature patches destined for PostgreSQL 9.6 must be committed no later
> than April 8, 2016. Any patch not committed prior to 2016-04-09
> 00:00:00 GMT may not be committed to PostgreSQL 9.6 unless (a) it is a
> bug fix, (b) it represents essential cleanup of a previously-committed
> patch, or (c) the release management team has approved an extension to
> the deadline for that particular patch."
IOW, the deadline is 8pm US/Eastern time, or about 9 hours from now.
Let's try not to introduce more bugs in the next 9 hours than we have
in the preceding 9 months.
What? Where's the fun in that?!
On 2016-04-08 10:56:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:06 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote: > > On 4/8/16 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes: > >>> So the commitfest is 84% complete with less than twelve hours to go. > >> > >> Have we set a particular time-of-day for closing the CF, and if so > >> what is it exactly? > > > > From the referenced email: > > > > "Accordingly, the release management has decided that all > > feature patches destined for PostgreSQL 9.6 must be committed no later > > than April 8, 2016. Any patch not committed prior to 2016-04-09 > > 00:00:00 GMT may not be committed to PostgreSQL 9.6 unless (a) it is a > > bug fix, (b) it represents essential cleanup of a previously-committed > > patch, or (c) the release management team has approved an extension to > > the deadline for that particular patch." > > IOW, the deadline is 8pm US/Eastern time, or about 9 hours from now. > > Let's try not to introduce more bugs in the next 9 hours than we have > in the preceding 9 months. I've finished polishing the Pin/Unpin patch. But the final polishing happened on an intercontential flight, after days spent preparing my move to SF. I'd be glad if you would allow me to look over the patch again, before pushing it sometime this weekend; this stuff is subtle, and I'm not exactly my best right now. Regards, Andres
On 8 April 2016 at 16:00, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
--
I've finished polishing the Pin/Unpin patch. But the final polishing
happened on an intercontential flight, after days spent preparing my
move to SF. I'd be glad if you would allow me to look over the patch
again, before pushing it sometime this weekend; this stuff is subtle,
and I'm not exactly my best right now.
I think you should push it now then.
Two reasons
1) We shouldn't be violating the deadline the first time its been in place. It just creates a precedent that sometimes the deadlines don't matter and that's not a useful position.
2) If you commit what you have, someone else might be able to see a bug you cannot
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-04-08 10:56:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:06 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> > On 4/8/16 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes: >> >>> So the commitfest is 84% complete with less than twelve hours to go. >> >> >> >> Have we set a particular time-of-day for closing the CF, and if so >> >> what is it exactly? >> > >> > From the referenced email: >> > >> > "Accordingly, the release management has decided that all >> > feature patches destined for PostgreSQL 9.6 must be committed no later >> > than April 8, 2016. Any patch not committed prior to 2016-04-09 >> > 00:00:00 GMT may not be committed to PostgreSQL 9.6 unless (a) it is a >> > bug fix, (b) it represents essential cleanup of a previously-committed >> > patch, or (c) the release management team has approved an extension to >> > the deadline for that particular patch." >> >> IOW, the deadline is 8pm US/Eastern time, or about 9 hours from now. >> >> Let's try not to introduce more bugs in the next 9 hours than we have >> in the preceding 9 months. > > I've finished polishing the Pin/Unpin patch. But the final polishing > happened on an intercontential flight, after days spent preparing my > move to SF. I'd be glad if you would allow me to look over the patch > again, before pushing it sometime this weekend; this stuff is subtle, > and I'm not exactly my best right now. In view of these circumstances, the RMT has voted to extend the deadline for this particular patch by 2.5 days; that is, this patch may be committed with RMT approval no later than 2016-04-11 12:00:00 GMT, which I believe is approximately 4am Monday morning where you are. Robert Haas PostgreSQL 9.6 Release Management Team
On 09/04/16 02:58, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com > <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:06 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net > <mailto:david@pgmasters.net>> wrote: > > On 4/8/16 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> David Steele <david@pgmasters.net <mailto:david@pgmasters.net>> > writes: > >>> So the commitfest is 84% complete with less than twelve hours > to go. > >> > >> Have we set a particular time-of-day for closing the CF, and if so > >> what is it exactly? > > > > From the referenced email: > > > > "Accordingly, the release management has decided that all > > feature patches destined for PostgreSQL 9.6 must be committed no > later > > than April 8, 2016. Any patch not committed prior to 2016-04-09 > > 00:00:00 GMT may not be committed to PostgreSQL 9.6 unless (a) > it is a > > bug fix, (b) it represents essential cleanup of a > previously-committed > > patch, or (c) the release management team has approved an > extension to > > the deadline for that particular patch." > > IOW, the deadline is 8pm US/Eastern time, or about 9 hours from now. > > Let's try not to introduce more bugs in the next 9 hours than we have > in the preceding 9 months. > > > What? Where's the fun in that?! > > -- > Magnus Hagander > Me: http://www.hagander.net/ > Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Yes, even worse Robert might attract the ire of the BLL (Bug Liberation League) - and then where would we be???
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-04-08 10:56:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:06 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>> > On 4/8/16 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
>> >>> So the commitfest is 84% complete with less than twelve hours to go.
>> >>
>> >> Have we set a particular time-of-day for closing the CF, and if so
>> >> what is it exactly?
>> >
>> > From the referenced email:
>> >
>> > "Accordingly, the release management has decided that all
>> > feature patches destined for PostgreSQL 9.6 must be committed no later
>> > than April 8, 2016. Any patch not committed prior to 2016-04-09
>> > 00:00:00 GMT may not be committed to PostgreSQL 9.6 unless (a) it is a
>> > bug fix, (b) it represents essential cleanup of a previously-committed
>> > patch, or (c) the release management team has approved an extension to
>> > the deadline for that particular patch."
>>
>> IOW, the deadline is 8pm US/Eastern time, or about 9 hours from now.
>>
>> Let's try not to introduce more bugs in the next 9 hours than we have
>> in the preceding 9 months.
>
> I've finished polishing the Pin/Unpin patch. But the final polishing
> happened on an intercontential flight, after days spent preparing my
> move to SF. I'd be glad if you would allow me to look over the patch
> again, before pushing it sometime this weekend; this stuff is subtle,
> and I'm not exactly my best right now.
In view of these circumstances, the RMT has voted to extend the
deadline for this particular patch by 2.5 days; that is, this patch
may be committed with RMT approval no later than 2016-04-11 12:00:00
GMT, which I believe is approximately 4am Monday morning where you
are.
Good to hear. Wise decision, because we really need this patch in 9.6.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
On 2016-04-08 11:52:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I've finished polishing the Pin/Unpin patch. But the final polishing > > happened on an intercontential flight, after days spent preparing my > > move to SF. I'd be glad if you would allow me to look over the patch > > again, before pushing it sometime this weekend; this stuff is subtle, > > and I'm not exactly my best right now. > > In view of these circumstances, the RMT has voted to extend the > deadline for this particular patch by 2.5 days; that is, this patch > may be committed with RMT approval no later than 2016-04-11 12:00:00 > GMT, which I believe is approximately 4am Monday morning where you > are. I've pushed this now. Didn't find anything really grave; fixed some easy to misunderstand variable naming, and some variables declared again in a nested scope (correct, but confusing). Thanks for the extension. I guess we can release 9.6 now. Greetings, Andres Freund
On 4/10/16 11:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-04-08 11:52:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> In view of these circumstances, the RMT has voted to extend the >> deadline for this particular patch by 2.5 days; that is, this patch >> may be committed with RMT approval no later than 2016-04-11 12:00:00 >> GMT, which I believe is approximately 4am Monday morning where you >> are. > > I've pushed this now. Didn't find anything really grave; fixed some easy > to misunderstand variable naming, and some variables declared again in a > nested scope (correct, but confusing). Thanks for the extension. I've marked this committed so the 2016-03 CF is now complete! -- -David david@pgmasters.net
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:35 PM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
On 4/10/16 11:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-08 11:52:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> In view of these circumstances, the RMT has voted to extend the
>> deadline for this particular patch by 2.5 days; that is, this patch
>> may be committed with RMT approval no later than 2016-04-11 12:00:00
>> GMT, which I believe is approximately 4am Monday morning where you
>> are.
>
> I've pushed this now. Didn't find anything really grave; fixed some easy
> to misunderstand variable naming, and some variables declared again in a
> nested scope (correct, but confusing). Thanks for the extension.
I've marked this committed so the 2016-03 CF is now complete!
Good job!
I've then marked the CF itself as closed as well.
Next step, open items list :)
On 04/11/2016 01:35 PM, David Steele wrote: > I've marked this committed so the 2016-03 CF is now complete! Thanks to you and everyone else involved in running this CF. You did an excellent job. Andreas
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> wrote: > On 04/11/2016 01:35 PM, David Steele wrote: >> I've marked this committed so the 2016-03 CF is now complete! > > Thanks to you and everyone else involved in running this CF. You did an > excellent job. Yeah, David deserves mad props. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company