Thread: Commitfest 2019-07, the first of five* for PostgreSQL 13
Hello hackers, The first Commitfest[1] for the next major release of PostgreSQL begins in a few days, and runs for the month of July. There are 218 patches registered[2] right now, and I'm sure we'll see some more at the last minute. PostgreSQL 13 needs you! I volunteered to be the CF manager for this one, and Jonathan Katz kindly offered to help me[3]. Assuming there are no objections and we land this coveted role (I didn't see any other volunteers for CF1?), I plan to start doing the sort of stuff listed on https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_a_CommitFest shortly, and will then provide updates on this thread. (Clearly some of that is out of date WRT the "new" Commitfest app and process, so if there's a better list somewhere please let me know; if not, perhaps one of our tasks should be to update that). Either way, please make sure your patches are in, and start signing up to review things that you're interested in or can help with or want to learn about. If you've submitted patches, it'd be ideal if you could try to review patches of similar size/complexity. Every review helps: whether proof-reading or copy-editing the documentation and comments (or noting that they are missing), finding low level C programming errors, providing high level architectural review, comparing against the SQL standard or other relevant standards or products, seeing if appropriate regression tests are included, manual testing or ... anything in between. Testing might include functionality testing (does it work as described, do all the supplied tests pass?), performance/scalability testing, portability testing (eg does it work on your OS?), checking with tools like valgrind, feature combination checks (are there hidden problems when combined with partitions, serializable, replication, triggers, ...?) and generally hunting for weird edge cases the author didn't think of[4]. A couple of notes for new players: We don't bite, and your contributions are very welcome. It's OK to review things that others are already reviewing. If you are interested in a patch and don't know how to get started reviewing it or how to get it up and running on your system, just ask and someone will be happy to point to or provide more instructions. You'll need to subscribe to this mailing list if you haven't already. If the thread for a CF entry began before you were subscribed, you might be able to download the whole thread as a mailbox file and import it into your email client so that you can reply to the thread; if you can't do that (it can be tricky/impossible on some email clients), ping me and I'll CC you so you can reply. *probably [1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest [2] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/23/ [3] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon_2019_Developer_Meeting#11:10_-_11:25.09Commitfest_Management [4] "A QA engineer walks into a bar. Orders a beer. Orders 0 beers. Orders 99999999999 beers. Orders a lizard. Orders -1 beers. Orders a ueicbksjdhd. First real customer walks in and asks where the bathroom is. The bar bursts into flames, killing everyone." -Brenan Keller -- Thomas Munro https://enterprisedb.com
Hello Thomas, > The first Commitfest[1] for the next major release of PostgreSQL > begins in a few days, and runs for the month of July. > There are 218 patches registered[2] right now, ISTM that there are a couple of duplicates: 2084 & 2150, 2119 & 2180? > I volunteered to be the CF manager for this one, and Jonathan Katz > kindly offered to help me[3]. Thanks for volunteering, and good luck with this task! -- Fabien.
Hello Is this commitfest for small patches and bugfixes, similar to 2018-07 one in last year? regards, Sergei
On 2019-06-28 09:58, Sergei Kornilov wrote: > Is this commitfest for small patches and bugfixes, similar to 2018-07 one in last year? There are no restrictions about what can be submitted to this commit fest. Review early and review often! -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Greetings, * Thomas Munro (thomas.munro@gmail.com) wrote: > If the thread for a CF entry began > before you were subscribed, you might be able to download the whole > thread as a mailbox file and import it into your email client so that > you can reply to the thread; if you can't do that (it can be > tricky/impossible on some email clients), ping me and I'll CC you so > you can reply. shhhhh, don't look now, but there might be a "Resend email" button in the archives now that you can click to have an email sent to you... Note that you have to be logged in, and the email will go to the email address that you're logging into the community auth system with. (thank you Magnus) Thanks! Stephen
Attachment
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> shhhhh, don't look now, but there might be a "Resend email" button in
> the archives now that you can click to have an email sent to you...
Oooh, lovely.
> (thank you Magnus)
+many
regards, tom lane
On 6/28/19 1:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: >> shhhhh, don't look now, but there might be a "Resend email" button in >> the archives now that you can click to have an email sent to you... > > Oooh, lovely. > >> (thank you Magnus) > > +many Thank you, Magnus, this is really helpful! -- -David david@pgmasters.net
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 9:47 AM David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 6/28/19 1:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > >> shhhhh, don't look now, but there might be a "Resend email" button in > >> the archives now that you can click to have an email sent to you... > > > > Oooh, lovely. > > > >> (thank you Magnus) > > > > +many > > Thank you, Magnus, this is really helpful! Thanks, that's great news. So, just to recap for new people who want to get involved in testing and reviewing, the steps are: 1. Subscribe to the pgsql-hackers mailing list, starting here: https://lists.postgresql.org/ 2. In the process of doing that, you'll create a PostgreSQL community account. 3. Choose a patch you're interested in from https://commitfest.postgresql.org/23/ , and possibly add yourself as a reviewer. 4. Follow the link to the email thread. 5. Click on the shiny new "Resend email" link on the latest email in the thread to receive a copy, if you didn't have it already. 6. You can reply-all to that email to join the discussion. (As with all busy mailing lists, you'll probably want to set up filtering to put pgsql-hackers messages into a seperate folder/label due to volume.) -- Thomas Munro https://enterprisedb.com
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:05 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 9:47 AM David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> On 6/28/19 1:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> >> shhhhh, don't look now, but there might be a "Resend email" button in
> >> the archives now that you can click to have an email sent to you...
> >
> > Oooh, lovely.
> >
> >> (thank you Magnus)
> >
> > +many
>
> Thank you, Magnus, this is really helpful!
Thanks, that's great news. So, just to recap for new people who want
to get involved in testing and reviewing, the steps are:
1. Subscribe to the pgsql-hackers mailing list, starting here:
https://lists.postgresql.org/
2. In the process of doing that, you'll create a PostgreSQL community account.
3. Choose a patch you're interested in from
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/23/ , and possibly add yourself as a
reviewer.
4. Follow the link to the email thread.
5. Click on the shiny new "Resend email" link on the latest email in
the thread to receive a copy, if you didn't have it already.
6. You can reply-all to that email to join the discussion.
(As with all busy mailing lists, you'll probably want to set up
filtering to put pgsql-hackers messages into a seperate folder/label
due to volume.)
It might also be worth noticing that for those who only care about following one thread, you can subscribe to the pgsql-hackers list and then disable mail delivery. That way you can still post on the thread, and the PostgreSQL convention to use "reply all" on emails and directly CC all participants will ensure you get a copy of any replies. This does assume you either started the thread or at some point interacted with it of course -- otherwise your email address wouldn't be in the CC list.
From: Stephen Frost [mailto:sfrost@snowman.net] > shhhhh, don't look now, but there might be a "Resend email" button in the > archives now that you can click to have an email sent to you... > > Note that you have to be logged in, and the email will go to the email address > that you're logging into the community auth system with. > > (thank you Magnus) Thank you so much, Magnus. This is very convenient. I'm forced to use Outlook at work, which doesn't allow to reply toa downloaded email. Your help eliminates the need to save all emails. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
Hello hackers, It's now July everywhere on Earth, so I marked CF 2019-07 as in-progress, and 2019-09 as open for bumping patches into. I pinged most of the "Needs Review" threads that don't apply and will do a few more tomorrow, and then I'll try to chase patches that fail on CI, and then see what I can do to highlight some entries that really need review/discussion. I'll do end-of-week status reports. -- Thomas Munro https://enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:20 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's now July everywhere on Earth, so I marked CF 2019-07 as
> in-progress, and 2019-09 as open for bumping patches into. I pinged
> most of the "Needs Review" threads that don't apply and will do a few
> more tomorrow, and then I'll try to chase patches that fail on CI, and
> then see what I can do to highlight some entries that really need
> review/discussion. I'll do end-of-week status reports.
Hello hackers,
Here's a quick status report after the first week (I think only about
10 commits happened during the week, the rest were pre-CF activity):
status | count
------------------------+-------
Committed | 32
Moved to next CF | 5
Needs review | 146
Ready for Committer | 7
Rejected | 2
Returned with feedback | 2
Waiting on Author | 29
Withdrawn | 8
I wondered about reporting on the number of entries that didn't yet
have reviewers signed up, but then I noticed that there isn't a very
good correlation between signed up reviewers and reviews. So instead,
here is a list of twenty "Needs review" entries that have gone a long
time without communication on the thread. In some cases there has
been plenty of review, so it's time to make decisions. In others,
there has been none at all.
If you're having trouble choosing something to review, please pick one
of these and help us figure out how to proceed.
2026 | Spurious "apparent wraparound" via Simpl | {"Noah Misch"}
2003 | Fix Deadlock Issue in Single User Mode W | {"Chengchao Yu"}
1796 | documenting signal handling with readme | {"Chris Travers"}
2053 | NOTIFY options + COLLAPSE (make deduplic | {"Filip Rembiałkowski"}
1974 | pg_stat_statements should notice FOR UPD | {"Andrew Gierth"}
2061 | [WIP] Show a human-readable n_distinct i | {"Maxence Ahlouche"}
2077 | fix pgbench -R hanging on pg11 | {"Fabien Coelho"}
2062 | Unaccent extension python script Issue i | {"Hugh
Ranalli","Ramanarayana M"}
1769 | libpq host/hostaddr consistency | {"Fabien Coelho"}
2060 | suppress errors thrown by to_reg*() | {"takuma hoshiai"}
2078 | Compile from source using latest Microso | {"Peifeng Qiu"}
2081 | parse time support function | {"Pavel Stehule"}
1800 | amcheck verification for GiST | {"Andrey Borodin"}
2018 | pg_basebackup to adjust existing data di | {"Haribabu Kommi"}
2095 | pg_upgrade version and path checking | {"Daniel Gustafsson"}
2044 | propagating replica identity to partitio | {"Álvaro Herrera"}
2090 | pgbench - implement strict TPC-B benchma | {"Fabien Coelho"}
2088 | Contribution to Perldoc for TestLib modu | {"Ramanarayana M"}
2087 | Problem during Windows service start | {"Ramanarayana M"}
2093 | Trigger autovacuum on tuple insertion | {"Darafei Praliaskouski"}
If you have submitted a patch and it's in "Waiting for author" state,
please aim to get it to "Needs review" state soon if you can, as
that's where people are most likely to be looking for things to
review.
I have pinged most threads that are in "Needs review" state and don't
apply, compile warning-free, or pass check-world. I'll do some more
of that sort of thing, and I'll highlight a different set of patches
next week.
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
Hello hackers,
Here's a quick update at the end of the second week of CF1.
status | w1 | w2
------------------------+-----+-----
Committed | 32 | 41
Moved to next CF | 5 | 6
Needs review | 146 | 128
Ready for Committer | 7 | 9
Rejected | 2 | 2
Returned with feedback | 2 | 2
Waiting on Author | 29 | 35
Withdrawn | 8 | 8
It looks like we continued our commit rate of around 10/week, punted
one to the next CF, and returned/rejected nothing.
Last week I highlighted 20 'Needs review' patches whose threads hadn't
seen traffic for the longest time as places that could use some
attention if our goal is to move all of these patches closer to their
destiny. A few of them made some progress and one was committed.
Here are another 20 like that -- these are threads have been silent
for 24 to 90 days. That means they mostly apply and pass basic
testing (or I'd probably have reported the failure on the thread and
they wouldn't be on this list). Which means you can test them!
2080 | Minimizing pg_stat_statements performanc | {"Raymond Martin"}
2103 | Fix failure of identity columns if there | {"Laurenz Albe"}
1472 | SQL/JSON: functions | {"Fedor
Sigaev","Alexander Korotkov","Nikita Glukhov","Oleg Bartunov"}
2124 | Introduce spgist quadtree @<(point,circl | {"Matwey V. Kornilov"}
1306 | pgbench - another attempt at tap test fo | {"Fabien Coelho"}
2126 | Rearrange postmaster startup order to im | {"Tom Lane"}
2128 | Fix issues with "x SIMILAR TO y ESCAPE N | {"Tom Lane"}
2102 | Improve Append/MergeAppend EXPLAIN outpu | {"David Rowley"}
1774 | Block level parallel vacuum | {"Masahiko Sawada"}
2086 | pgbench - extend initialization phase co | {"Fabien Coelho"}
1348 | BRIN bloom and multi-minmax indexes | {"Tomas Vondra"}
2183 | Opclass parameters | {"Nikita Glukhov"}
1854 | libpq trace log | {"Aya Iwata"}
2147 | Parallel grouping sets | {"Richard Guo"}
2148 | vacuumlo: report the number of large obj | {"Timur Birsh"}
1984 | Fix performance issue in foreign-key-awa | {"David Rowley"}
1911 | anycompatible and anycompatiblearray pol | {"Pavel Stehule"}
2048 | WIP: Temporal primary and foreign keys | {"Paul Jungwirth"}
2160 | Multi insert in CTAS/MatView | {"Paul Guo","Taylor Vesely"}
2154 | Race conditions with TAP test for syncre | {"Michael Paquier"}
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
Hello hackers,
Here are the stats at the end of week 3 of the CF:
status | w1 | w2 | w3
------------------------+-----+-----+-----
Committed | 32 | 41 | 49
Moved to next CF | 5 | 6 | 6
Needs review | 146 | 128 | 114
Ready for Committer | 7 | 9 | 10
Rejected | 2 | 2 | 2
Returned with feedback | 2 | 2 | 2
Waiting on Author | 29 | 35 | 39
Withdrawn | 8 | 8 | 9
Here is the last batch of submissions that I want to highlight. These
13 are all marked as "Needs review", but haven't yet seen any email
traffic since the CF began:
2119 | Use memcpy in pglz decompression | {"Andrey
Borodin","Владимир Лесков"}
2169 | Remove HeapTuple and Buffer dependency f | {"Ashwin Agrawal"}
2172 | fsync error handling in pg_receivewal, p | {"Peter Eisentraut"}
1695 | Global shared meta cache | {"Takeshi Ideriha"}
2175 | socket_timeout in interfaces/libpq | {"Ryohei Nagaura"}
2096 | psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS option | {"Fabien Coelho"}
2023 | NOT IN to ANTI JOIN transformation | {"James Finnerty","Zheng Li"}
2064 | src/test/modules/dummy_index -- way to t | {"Nikolay Shaplov"}
1712 | Remove self join on a unique column | {"Alexander Kuzmenkov"}
2180 | Optimize pglz compression | {"Andrey
Borodin","Владимир Лесков"}
2179 | Fix support for hypothetical indexes usi | {"Julien Rouhaud"}
2025 | SimpleLruTruncate() mutual exclusion (da | {"Noah Misch"}
2069 | Expose queryid in pg_stat_activity in lo | {"Julien Rouhaud"}
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
Hello,
Here are the numbers at the end of the 4th week, with just a few days to go:
status | w1 | w2 | w3 | w4
------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----
Committed | 32 | 41 | 49 | 59
Moved to next CF | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6
Needs review | 146 | 128 | 114 | 106
Ready for Committer | 7 | 9 | 10 | 7
Rejected | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2
Returned with feedback | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2
Waiting on Author | 29 | 35 | 39 | 39
Withdrawn | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10
One observation is that the number marked "Ready for Committer" floats
around 7-10, and that's also about how many get committed each week
(around 20 were already committed pre-'fest), which seems like a clue
that things are moving through that part of the state transition
diagram reasonably well.
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
Hi all, CF1 officially ends in about 8 hours, when August arrives on the volcanic islands of Howard and Baker, according to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP AT TIME ZONE '+12'. I'll probably mark it closed at least 8 hours later than that because I'll be asleep. Anything that is waiting on author and hasn't had any recent communication, I'm planning to mark as returned with feedback. Anything that is clearly making good progress but isn't yet ready for committer, I'm going to move to the next CF. If you're a patch owner or reviewer and you can help move your patches in the right direction, or have other feedback on the appropriate state for any or all patches, then please speak up, I'd really appreciate it. In all cases please feel free to change the state or complain if you think I or someone else got it wrong; if I recall correctly there is a way to get from "returned" to "moved to next CF", perhaps via an intermediate state. Thanks! -- Thomas Munro https://enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:10 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
CF1 officially ends in about 8 hours, when August arrives on the
volcanic islands of Howard and Baker, according to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
AT TIME ZONE '+12'. I'll probably mark it closed at least 8 hours
later than that because I'll be asleep. Anything that is waiting on
author and hasn't had any recent communication, I'm planning to mark
as returned with feedback. Anything that is clearly making good
progress but isn't yet ready for committer, I'm going to move to the
next CF. If you're a patch owner or reviewer and you can help move
your patches in the right direction, or have other feedback on the
appropriate state for any or all patches, then please speak up, I'd
really appreciate it. In all cases please feel free to change the
state or complain if you think I or someone else got it wrong; if I
recall correctly there is a way to get from "returned" to "moved to
next CF", perhaps via an intermediate state. Thanks!
As a normal lurker on hackers, it has been nice seeing the weekly updates. Thanks for those.
-- Rob
--
Thomas Munro
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__enterprisedb.com&d=DwIBaQ&c=lnl9vOaLMzsy2niBC8-h_K-7QJuNJEsFrzdndhuJ3Sw&r=51tHa8Iv1xJ6zHVF3Sip1AlXYA5E-AYBfRUwz6SDvrs&m=zzunjUZWnsNXR62PvYhl6kzf6VG6mHBPRpJodFEHOKg&s=b09bCdTOGVhOmxdWbWwiTx0FedVeDW7Ol0EJV6pN_BQ&e=
Greetings, Robert. You wrote 2019-08-01, 07:30: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:10 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > CF1 officially ends in about 8 hours, when August arrives on the > volcanic islands of Howard and Baker, according to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP > AT TIME ZONE '+12'. I'll probably mark it closed at least 8 hours > later than that because I'll be asleep. Anything that is waiting on > author and hasn't had any recent communication, I'm planning to mark > as returned with feedback. Anything that is clearly making good > progress but isn't yet ready for committer, I'm going to move to the > next CF. If you're a patch owner or reviewer and you can help move > your patches in the right direction, or have other feedback on the > appropriate state for any or all patches, then please speak up, I'd > really appreciate it. In all cases please feel free to change the > state or complain if you think I or someone else got it wrong; if I > recall correctly there is a way to get from "returned" to "moved to > next CF", perhaps via an intermediate state. Thanks! > As a normal lurker on hackers, it has been nice seeing the weekly updates. Thanks for those. Yeap! Great job! Please, do the same for the rest of our lifes. :) > -- Rob > > -- > Thomas Munro > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__enterprisedb.com&d=DwIBaQ&c=lnl9vOaLMzsy2niBC8-h_K-7QJuNJEsFrzdndhuJ3Sw&r=51tHa8Iv1xJ6zHVF3Sip1AlXYA5E-AYBfRUwz6SDvrs&m=zzunjUZWnsNXR62PvYhl6kzf6VG6mHBPRpJodFEHOKg&s=b09bCdTOGVhOmxdWbWwiTx0FedVeDW7Ol0EJV6pN_BQ&e= -- Kind regards, Pavlo mailto:pavlo.golub@cybertec.at
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:12 PM Pavlo Golub <pavlo.golub@cybertec.at> wrote:
> > As a normal lurker on hackers, it has been nice seeing the weekly updates. Thanks for those.
>
> Yeap! Great job! Please, do the same for the rest of our lifes. :)
I guess the CF app could show those kind of metrics, but having a
written report from a human seems to be a good idea (I got it from
Alvaro's blog[1]). The CF is now closed, and here are the final
numbers:
status | w1 | w2 | w3 | w4 | final
------------------------+----+----+----+----+-------
Committed | 32 | 41 | 49 | 59 | 64
Moved to next CF | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 145
Rejected | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2
Returned with feedback | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9
Withdrawn | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
In percentages, we returned and rejected 5%, withdrew 5%, committed
28%, and pushed 62% to the next 'fest. That's a wrap. Thanks
everyone.
[1] https://www.2ndquadrant.com/en/blog/managing-a-postgresql-commitfest/
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 12:18:12PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > In percentages, we returned and rejected 5%, withdrew 5%, committed > 28%, and pushed 62% to the next 'fest. That's a wrap. Thanks > everyone. Thanks Thomas for your efforts in making this possible. -- Michael
Attachment
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 12:18:12PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> In percentages, we returned and rejected 5%, withdrew 5%, committed
>> 28%, and pushed 62% to the next 'fest. That's a wrap. Thanks
>> everyone.
> Thanks Thomas for your efforts in making this possible.
+several --- this is a lot of tedious work, but it definitely helps.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 9:18 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:12 PM Pavlo Golub <pavlo.golub@cybertec.at> wrote: > > > As a normal lurker on hackers, it has been nice seeing the weekly updates. Thanks for those. > > > > Yeap! Great job! Please, do the same for the rest of our lifes. :) > > I guess the CF app could show those kind of metrics, but having a > written report from a human seems to be a good idea (I got it from > Alvaro's blog[1]). The CF is now closed, and here are the final > numbers: > > status | w1 | w2 | w3 | w4 | final > ------------------------+----+----+----+----+------- > Committed | 32 | 41 | 49 | 59 | 64 > Moved to next CF | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 145 > Rejected | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 > Returned with feedback | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 > Withdrawn | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 > > In percentages, we returned and rejected 5%, withdrew 5%, committed > 28%, and pushed 62% to the next 'fest. That's a wrap. Thanks > everyone. Thank you Thomas! Regards, Amit
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 6:55 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 9:18 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:12 PM Pavlo Golub <pavlo.golub@cybertec.at> wrote: > > > > As a normal lurker on hackers, it has been nice seeing the weekly updates. Thanks for those. > > > > > > Yeap! Great job! Please, do the same for the rest of our lifes. :) > > > > I guess the CF app could show those kind of metrics, but having a > > written report from a human seems to be a good idea (I got it from > > Alvaro's blog[1]). The CF is now closed, and here are the final > > numbers: > > > > status | w1 | w2 | w3 | w4 | final > > ------------------------+----+----+----+----+------- > > Committed | 32 | 41 | 49 | 59 | 64 > > Moved to next CF | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 145 > > Rejected | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 > > Returned with feedback | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 > > Withdrawn | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 > > > > In percentages, we returned and rejected 5%, withdrew 5%, committed > > 28%, and pushed 62% to the next 'fest. That's a wrap. Thanks > > everyone. > > Thank you Thomas! Thanks a lot Thomas!
> I guess the CF app could show those kind of metrics, but having a > written report from a human seems to be a good idea (I got it from > Alvaro's blog[1]). The CF is now closed, and here are the final > numbers: > > status | w1 | w2 | w3 | w4 | final > ------------------------+----+----+----+----+------- > Committed | 32 | 41 | 49 | 59 | 64 > Moved to next CF | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 145 > Rejected | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 > Returned with feedback | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 > Withdrawn | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 > > In percentages, we returned and rejected 5%, withdrew 5%, committed > 28%, and pushed 62% to the next 'fest. That's a wrap. Thanks > everyone. > > [1] https://www.2ndquadrant.com/en/blog/managing-a-postgresql-commitfest/ Thanks. Attached a small graphical display of CF results over time. -- Fabien.
