Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List
| От | Jeff Janes |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMkU=1z4DKB+wBj4=MJqFmV3az-z8oUbStY_hJ+RVq_+GQE+qw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List (Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Cédric Villemain <cedric@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:> Clearly I ticked off a bunch of people by publishing "the list". On theOthers rules appeared, like the 5 days limit.
> other hand, in the 5 days succeeding the post, more than a dozen
> additional people signed up to review patches, and we got some of the
> "ready for committer" patches cleared out -- something which nothing
> else I did, including dozens of private emails, general pleas to this
> mailing list, mails to the RRReviewers list, served to accomplish, in
> this or previous CFs.
The limit was previously 4 days (at least according to http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/RRReviewers) but I think that that was honored almost exclusively in the breach. I don't have a sense for how the 5 day limit is working. If it is working, great. If not, I would advocate lengthening it--having a limit specified but not generally held to is counterproductive. I know that I, and at least one other potential reviewer, won't ask to be assigned a random patch because we have no confidence we can do an adequate review of a random patch within a contiguous 5 day window.
On the other hand, I could always just go to the open commitfest (rather than the in progress one), pick something at random myself, and have up to 3 months to review it. I just don't do have the discipline to do that, at least not often.
To me it outlines that some are abusing the CF app and pushing there useless
patches (not still ready or complete, WIP, ...Seems to me that "useless" overstates things, but it does seem fair tosay that some patches are not sufficiently well prepared to be efficiently
added into Postgres.
I think that there will always be contributions that need some hand-holding of some form. Isn't that what "returned with feedback" is for?
> So, as an experiment, call it a mixed result. I would like to have someYou're looking at a short term, big effect.
> other way to motivate reviewers than public shame. I'd like to have
> some positive motivations for reviewers, such as public recognition by
> our project and respect from hackers, but I'm doubting that those are
> actually going to happen, given the feedback I've gotten on this list to
> the idea.
And long term ? Will people listed still be interested to participate in a
project which stamps people ?
With or without review, it's a shame if people stop proposing patches because
they are not sure to get time to review other things *in time*.Well, if the project is hampered by not being able to get *all* the
changes that people imagine that they want to put in, then we have areal problem of needing a sort of "triage" to determine which changeswill be accepted, and which will not.Perhaps we need an extra status in the CommitFest application, namely
one that characterizes:Insufficiently Important To Warrant ReviewThat's too long a term. Perhaps "Not Review-worthy" expresses it better?
I don't think that this would really be an improvement. Someone still has to spend enough time looking at the patch to make the decision that it falls into one of those categories. Having spent sufficient time to do that, what they did is ipso facto a review, and they should just set it as either rejected (not important or idea unworkable) or RwF (idea is workable, but the given implementation is not).
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Предыдущее
От: Jeff DavisДата:
Сообщение: Re: Request for Patch Feedback: Lag & Lead Window Functions Can Ignore Nulls
Следующее
От: Jeff DavisДата:
Сообщение: Re: Request for Patch Feedback: Lag & Lead Window Functions Can Ignore Nulls