Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

CommitFest 2010-07 week one progress report

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,<pgsql-rrreviewers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: CommitFest 2010-07 week one progress report
Date: 2010-07-22 18:09:32
Message-ID: 4C48430C0200002500033B3E@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-rrreviewers
New numbers on where we are with this CommitFest:
 
71 patches were submitted
 3 patches were withdrawn (deleted) by their authors
--
68 total patches currently in the application
--
 3 committed to 9.0
--
65 9.1 patches
--
 1 rejected
 5 returned with feedback
11 committed for 9.1
--
17 9.1 patches disposed
--
48 pending
 8 ready for committer
--
40 will still need reviewer attention
 9 waiting on author to respond to review
--
31 need review before further action
13 "Needs Review" patches don't have a reviewer assigned
--
18 patches have reviews due within four days or less
 

I had particular concerns about the synchronous replication patches,
because I've seen competing patches like that lead to significant
wheel-spinning and duplication of effort.  To try to minimize that,
I asked Yeb to do a preliminary review of both.  He has not
completed reporting on that, but expects to finish within a day or
two.  My hope is that all parties who want to move this forward will
join efforts and bring their ideas to bear on a single patch.
 
I see that nobody has signed up for the GSoC patch regarding
materialized views.  Do we have an official "mentor" for this
effort?  Would it be a good or bad idea for that person to do the
review?
 
Although we've had some discussion around Markus Wanner's WIP
refactoring patches and the prerequisite miscellaneous patches,
there's nobody down as a Reviewer for any of them.  I understand
that the six WIP patches are there for feedback, not with
expectation of a commit in this CF, but I'm less clear about the two
prerequisite patches.
 
The "WIP patch for serializable transactions with predicate locking"
is big, but there's no expectation of a commit this CF, and Joe
assures me he's working on it every day; so nobody should be
concerned about the lack of a review post on that so far.
 
I am hopeful that in the next week we can clear a lot of the pending
patches which have already had some review, and get someone on every
unclaimed patch.
 
-Kevin
 
 
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
 
> 68 patches were submitted
>  3 patches were withdrawn (deleted) by their authors
> --
> 65 total patches currently in the application
> --
>  3 committed to 9.0
> --
> 62 9.1 patches
> --
>  1 rejected
>  3 returned with feedback
>  1 committed for 9.1
> --
> 57 pending
> 10 ready for committer
> --
> 47 will still need reviewer attention
>  6 waiting on author to respond to review
> --
> 41 need review before further action
> 23 patches "Needs Review" patches don't have a reviewer assigned
> --
> 18 patches have reviews due within four days


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-07-22 18:31:41
Subject: Re: dynamically allocating chunks from shared memory
Previous:From: Marko TiikkajaDate: 2010-07-22 17:43:35
Subject: Rewrite, normal execution vs. EXPLAIN ANALYZE

pgsql-rrreviewers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-22 18:51:13
Subject: Re: CommitFest 2010-07 week one progress report
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-07-21 14:09:20
Subject: One more patch without reviewer

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group