Thread: 2022-01 Commitfest
Hi, The January commitfest should have started almost two weeks ago, but given that nothing happened until now I think that it's safe to assume that either everyone forgot or no one wanted to volunteer. I'm therfore volunteering to manage this commitfest, although since it's already quite late it's probably going to be a bit chaotic and a best effort, but it's better than nothing. As of today, there's a total of 292 patches for this commitfest and 240 still active patches, 15 of them being there since 10 or more commitfests. Status summary: - Needs review: 190. - Waiting on Author: 23. - Ready for Committer: 27. - Committed: 43. - Returned with Feedback: 1. - Withdrawn: 7. - Rejected: 1. Note that I don't have admin permissions on the cf app, so I'd be glad if something could grant it!
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:11 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote: > > The January commitfest should have started almost two weeks ago, but given that > nothing happened until now I think that it's safe to assume that either > everyone forgot or no one wanted to volunteer. > > I'm therfore volunteering to manage this commitfest, > Thanks! -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 6:42 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote: > > Note that I don't have admin permissions on the cf app, so I'd be glad if > something could grant it! Granted! -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 04:16:36PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 6:42 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Note that I don't have admin permissions on the cf app, so I'd be glad if > > something could grant it! > > Granted! Thanks Magnus!
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 01:41:42PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > The January commitfest should have started almost two weeks ago, but given that > nothing happened until now I think that it's safe to assume that either > everyone forgot or no one wanted to volunteer. Thanks, Julien! -- Michael
Attachment
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 01:41:42PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > Hi, > > The January commitfest should have started almost two weeks ago, but given that > nothing happened until now I think that it's safe to assume that either > everyone forgot or no one wanted to volunteer. > > I'm therfore volunteering to manage this commitfest, although since it's > already quite late it's probably going to be a bit chaotic and a best effort, > but it's better than nothing. Much appreciated, thanks!
Hi, This is the beginning of the 3rd week of this commit fest. Since my last email 5 days ago, 6 patches were committed and a few patches closed. There are still overall 229 active patches, most of them unsurprisingly waiting for review. The cfbot is doing a great job at early problem detection, including on less common platforms. I'd like to remind all hackers that the latest branch now has everything included to easily test your own patchset on a private github repository the same way that the cfbot will. That's a 5 minutes configuration, you will find all the details at https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/tools/ci/README. Thanks again to everyone involved in that feature, I'm personally a big fan already! Status summary: - Needs review: 157. - Waiting on Author: 47. - Ready for Committer: 25. - Committed: 49. - Returned with Feedback: 2. - Withdrawn: 8. - Rejected: 4.
Hi, This is the 4th week of this commitfest. Since last week, 5 entries were committed. There are still overall 223 active patches, the vast majority needing review. If you signed up to review patches, you still have a whole week to help patch making progress and getting committed! Status summary: - Needs review: 142. - Waiting on Author: 57. - Ready for Committer: 24. - Committed: 54. - Moved to next CF: 1. - Returned with Feedback: 2. - Rejected: 4. - Withdrawn: 8.
Hi, It's now at least Feb. 1st anywhere on earth, so the commit fest is now over. Since last week 5 entries were committed, 1 withdrawn, 3 returned with feedback, 2 already moved to the next commitfest and 1 rejected. This gives a total of 211 patches still alive, most of them ready for the next and final pg15 commitfest. Status summary: - Needs review: 147. - Waiting on Author: 38. - Ready for Committer: 26. - Committed: 59. - Moved to next CF: 3. - Returned with Feedback: 5. - Rejected: 5. - Withdrawn: 9. - Total: 292. I will take care of closing the current commit fest and moving the entries to the next one shortly.
I gave two reviews and received one review but the patches have been "Moved to next CF". Should I update them to "Returned with Feedback" given they all did get feedback? I was under the impression "Moved to next CF" was only for patches that didn't get feedback in a CF and were still waiting for feedback. On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 11:16, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > It's now at least Feb. 1st anywhere on earth, so the commit fest is now over. > > Since last week 5 entries were committed, 1 withdrawn, 3 returned with > feedback, 2 already moved to the next commitfest and 1 rejected. > > This gives a total of 211 patches still alive, most of them ready for the next > and final pg15 commitfest. > > Status summary: > - Needs review: 147. > - Waiting on Author: 38. > - Ready for Committer: 26. > - Committed: 59. > - Moved to next CF: 3. > - Returned with Feedback: 5. > - Rejected: 5. > - Withdrawn: 9. > - Total: 292. > > I will take care of closing the current commit fest and moving the entries to > the next one shortly. > > -- greg
Hi, On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:09:06PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > I gave two reviews and received one review but the patches have been > "Moved to next CF". For now I only moved to the next commit fest the patches that were in "Needs Review" or "Ready for Committer". I'm assuming that you failed to update the cf entry accordingly after your reviews, so yeah the patches were moved. I unfortunately don't have a lot of time right now and the commit fest still needs to be closed, so I prefer to use my time triaging the patches that were marked as Waiting on Author rather than going through a couple hundred of threads yet another time. > Should I update them to "Returned with Feedback" > given they all did get feedback? I was under the impression "Moved to > next CF" was only for patches that didn't get feedback in a CF and > were still waiting for feedback. My understanding of "Returned with Feedback" is that the patch implements something wanted, but as proposed won't be accepted without a major redesign or something like that. Not patches that are going through normal "review / addressing reviews" cycles. And definitely not bug fixes either. If we close all patches that had a review just because they weren't perfect in their initial submission, we're just going to force everyone to re-register their patch for every single commit fest. I don't see that doing anything apart from making sure that everyone stops contributing.
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:28:53AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > My understanding of "Returned with Feedback" is that the patch implements > something wanted, but as proposed won't be accepted without a major redesign or > something like that. Not patches that are going through normal "review / > addressing reviews" cycles. And definitely not bug fixes either. > > If we close all patches that had a review just because they weren't perfect in > their initial submission, we're just going to force everyone to re-register > their patch for every single commit fest. I don't see that doing anything > apart from making sure that everyone stops contributing. > I had the same problem last time, "Returned with feedback" didn't feel fine in some cases. After reading this i started to wish there was some kind of guide about this, and of course the wiki has that guide (outdated yes but something to start with). https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest_Checklist#Sudden_Death_Overtime This needs some love, still mentions rrreviewers for example, but if we updated and put here a clear definition of the states maybe it could help to do CF managment. -- Jaime Casanova Director de Servicios Profesionales SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:45:40PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:28:53AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > > > My understanding of "Returned with Feedback" is that the patch implements > > something wanted, but as proposed won't be accepted without a major redesign or > > something like that. Not patches that are going through normal "review / > > addressing reviews" cycles. And definitely not bug fixes either. > > > > If we close all patches that had a review just because they weren't perfect in > > their initial submission, we're just going to force everyone to re-register > > their patch for every single commit fest. I don't see that doing anything > > apart from making sure that everyone stops contributing. > > > > I had the same problem last time, "Returned with feedback" didn't feel > fine in some cases. > > After reading this i started to wish there was some kind of guide about > this, and of course the wiki has that guide (outdated yes but something > to start with). > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest_Checklist#Sudden_Death_Overtime > > This needs some love, still mentions rrreviewers for example Yes, I looked at it but to be honest it doesn't make any sense. It feels like this is punishing patches that get reviewed at the end of the commitfest or that previously got an incorrect review, and somehow tries to salvage patches from authors that don't review anything. > but if we > updated and put here a clear definition of the states maybe it could > help to do CF managment. I'm all for it, but looking at the current commit fest focusing on unresponsive authors (e.g. close one way or another patches that have been waiting on author for more than X days) should already help quite a lot.
Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:28:53AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> If we close all patches that had a review just because they weren't perfect in
>> their initial submission, we're just going to force everyone to re-register
>> their patch for every single commit fest. I don't see that doing anything
>> apart from making sure that everyone stops contributing.
> I had the same problem last time, "Returned with feedback" didn't feel
> fine in some cases.
Agreed, we're not here to cause make-work for submitters. RWF is
appropriate if the patch has been in Waiting On Author for awhile
and doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but otherwise we should
just punt it to the next CF.
Anyway, thanks to Julien for doing this mostly-thankless task
this time!
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:00:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Anyway, thanks to Julien for doing this mostly-thankless task > this time! > Agreed, great work! -- Jaime Casanova Director de Servicios Profesionales SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:10:39PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:00:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Anyway, thanks to Julien for doing this mostly-thankless task > > this time! > > > > Agreed, great work! Thanks a lot :)
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:00:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Agreed, we're not here to cause make-work for submitters. RWF is > appropriate if the patch has been in Waiting On Author for awhile > and doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but otherwise we should > just punt it to the next CF. FWIW, I just apply a two-week rule here, as of half the commit fest period to let people the time to react: - If a patch has been waiting on author since the 15th of January, mark it as RwF. - If it has been left as waiting on author after the 15th of January, move it to the next CF. > Anyway, thanks to Julien for doing this mostly-thankless task > this time! +1. -- Michael
Attachment
Hi, On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 03:49:50PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:00:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Agreed, we're not here to cause make-work for submitters. RWF is > > appropriate if the patch has been in Waiting On Author for awhile > > and doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but otherwise we should > > just punt it to the next CF. > > FWIW, I just apply a two-week rule here, as of half the commit fest > period to let people the time to react: > - If a patch has been waiting on author since the 15th of January, > mark it as RwF. > - If it has been left as waiting on author after the 15th of January, > move it to the next CF. Thanks. Note that I was planning to do that on Monday, as it didn't seemed rushed enough to spend time on it during the weekend.
On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 02:57:45PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 03:49:50PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > > FWIW, I just apply a two-week rule here, as of half the commit fest > > period to let people the time to react: > > - If a patch has been waiting on author since the 15th of January, > > mark it as RwF. > > - If it has been left as waiting on author after the 15th of January, > > move it to the next CF. > > Thanks. Note that I was planning to do that on Monday, as it didn't seemed > rushed enough to spend time on it during the weekend. And that's now done. I also sent an email to warn the authors of those patches and closed the 2022-01 commit fest.