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

Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Date: 2013-01-16 12:08:27
Message-ID: CABUevEywQG3p4gBExO+Oq7ieCPFq7-7uTv176rkcbFV5j+Cytg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
>>
>> In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
>> the CF process.
>
> What can we do to get it back on track?

Not sure. One start might be to actually start having commitfest
managers. I haven't actually checked numbers, but my feeling is that
last round most commitfests (maybe not all) had a commitfest manager
that worked (usually hard) at keeping things moving, whereas this
round most (or all?) commitfests have been unmanaged. I'm not sure if
that's the reason for it, but it's a feeling I have..


> I know various people (myself included) have been trying to keep CF3
> moving, e.g. sending followup mail, adjusting patch status, etc.
>
> I want to help, but I don't know what's wrong. What are the committers
> working on, and what is the status of the "Ready for commiter" patches?
> Is the problem that the patches marked Ready aren't, in fact, ready? Or
> is it lack of feedback from authors? Or something else?

I'm not one of the committers that pick up the most patches, but from
reading messages on the lists I think fairly often patches that are
marked as ready, aren't. Sometimes they require a small change, which
is fine, but more often than not once it hits a committer it ends up
with a lot of feedback requiring rather extensive changes. As in it
technical works, but it's better to do it in a different way. I'm not
sure how to catch those better.


> Would it help at all to move all pending items (i.e. anything less than
> ready) from CF3 to CF4, just so that the committers have only one list
> to look at, while reviewers can work on the other? Only psychological,
> but maybe that's better than the current situation?

No, it would. They should've been bounced to the next commitfest when
the last one closed. The problem was we never closed it...


Tom also wrote:
> In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of the CF
> process.  Quite aside from the lack of progress on closing CF3, major
> hackers who should know better are submitting significant new feature
> patches now, despite our agreement in Ottawa that nothing big would be
> accepted after CF3.  At this point I'd bet against releasing 9.3 during
> 2013.

Well, if we said that, why don't we just single out those patches, and
bounce them right now. Before people put more work into it.

We also talked about the one-patch-one-review. Did someone ever check
if that worked out - did we get that spread, or did we end up with the
same ratio as last time?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2013-01-16 12:12:00
Subject: Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Previous:From: Andres FreundDate: 2013-01-16 12:05:36
Subject: CF Progress or the lack thereof

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