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

Re: [HACKERS] 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: Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2010-07 week one progress report
Date: 2010-07-29 15:46:43
Message-ID: 4C515C130200002500033E7F@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-rrreviewers
New numbers on where we are with this CommitFest, as we approach the
half-way point:
 
72 patches were submitted
 3 patches were withdrawn (deleted) by their authors
 8 patches were moved to CommitFest 2010-09
--
61 patches in CommitFest 2010-07
--
 3 committed to 9.0
--
58 patches for 9.1
--
 1 rejected
13 returned with feedback
12 committed for 9.1
--
26 disposed
--
32 pending
10 ready for committer
--
22 will still need reviewer attention
 7 waiting on author to respond to review
--
15 need review before further action
 2 "Needs Review" patches don't have a reviewer assigned
--
13 patches need review and have a reviewer assigned
 
Of the eight patches moved to the next CF, all were moved by or at
the request of their authors.  One was because the author didn't
feel the patch was ready for review and didn't have time to take
care of that in this CF.  Six were WiP patches which need
documentation (perhaps a Wiki page) before others can effectively
review them.  One is ready for committer, but isn't needed until we
are ready to commit the KNN-GiST, which was submitted for the next
CF.
 
13 of the 22 patches which will still need reviewer attention have
had at least one review.  Many of the others have had discussion and
comment entries, but not yet a formal review.
 
The "WIP patch for serializable transactions with predicate locking"
by Dan Ports and myself has had some off-list questions from Joe
Conway.  The questions are noted as opportunities for further code
comments.  He pointed out one bug which has been fixed.  And the
questions have caused me to notice a couple areas which need work to
reduce the false positive rate.
 
The last two patches which are without an assigned reviewer appear
to be in that state because there aren't many people who feel
competent to review these areas.  The "ECPG FETCH readahead" patch
by Zoltán Böszörményi and the "WiP: Per-column collation" patch by
Peter Eisentraut both need *someone* to step up.  Volunteers or
suggestions welcome.
 
Perhaps the biggest CF news of the last week is that we are no
longer faced with a fork in the efforts to implement synchronous
replication for 9.1 -- Zoltán Böszörményi has heroically offered to
withdraw his patch and work with Fujii Masao on enhancing the
subsequent "Another synchronous replication" patch.  With everyone
working from the same base to push this effort forward, I'm hopeful
that we can overcome the challenges this technology presents.  I
think it will be very good for the project if we can get a fairly
polished and "close to final" version committed before the last
CommitFest, so that it has a full alpha test cycle to settle in. 
Note that this means that such a patch must be submitted within
*three and a half months*!  Yes, we are that far in to the 9.1
development cycle.
 
Some of the other patches may have funny dates, but I believe from
off-list emails that things are generally moving OK.
 
-Kevin
 
 
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
 
> 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


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-07-29 16:03:07
Subject: Re: string_to_array has to be stable?
Previous:From: Alexander KorotkovDate: 2010-07-29 15:27:05
Subject: Re: multibyte charater set in levenshtein function

pgsql-rrreviewers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-08-05 18:42:54
Subject: CommitFest 2010-07 week three progress report
Previous:From: Jaime CasanovaDate: 2010-07-29 07:02:23
Subject: i'm taking a patch

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