I understand your complaints. I think, the real problem is that some of us
live in the part of word with long holidays in December, while we in Russia
have very long holidays in January. So, about a month we couldn't synchronize
developers and reviewers. I'm not sure if we took this into account.
In regard to the knngist patch I want to claim, that I and Teodor are here
and willing to answer any questions.
I changed subject not to interfere with other topics.
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2010/2/7 Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>:
>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> I think it might be time to revisit this issue. SR is in, and we have
>>>>> a week left in the CF, and we have all of the above patches plus 5
>>>>> small ones left to deal with. rbtree is close to being committable, I
>>>>> think; knngist has not been reviewed yet; you (Tom) have claimed the
>>>>> frame options patch but I haven't seen any update on it in a while; I
>>>>> doubt either of the other two are ready to commit but I'm not sure how
>>>>> far they have to go.
>>>> I think, as previously discussed, that we should bounce knngist. It's
>>>> a complex patch and nobody saw anything of it until Jan 15, so I don't
>>>> feel bad about it. Mark Cave-Ayland was going to review it, but
>>>> apparently felt that rbtree was the higher priority.
>> Hey, I'm lost here, when we previously discussed, that knngist should be
>> rejected ?
> Huh? Have you been reading -hackers for the last month? I first
> raised this issue on December 30th, and there has been lots more
> discussion of it since then.
>> knngist is a legal patch, submitted in time (and discussed in
>> -hackers) and it's not our fault, people are busy doing other reviews.
> I never said anything about fault. If there's not enough time to get
> something committed, then there isn't. That's not a punishment; it's
> just something that sometimes happens to patches submitted near the
> end of the cycle. We've been openly discussing this problem on
> -hackers for weeks. But since you brought it up, let's discuss what
> has happened so far and the likelihood that this patch is going to be
> committable in the next week.
>> Knngist has some prerequisites, rbtree, for example, and it took a while,
>> but now, when we're close to commit rbtree, people can review knngist.
> This patch is a group of three related patches: point_ops, rbtree, knngist.
> point_ops, the simplest, was initially submitted on November 23rd. An
> updated version was submitted on December 30th. I reviewed it on
> December 31st and made some minor suggestions for improvement, which
> Teodor accepted. It was committed on January 14th - so IOW, 1 review
> and 14 days from first review to commit.
> rbtree, which was more complex, was also submitted on November 23rd.
> I took a quick look on it on December 31st, a more complete review on
> January 10th, and a still more complete review on January 20th. I
> reviewed it again on January 25th and again on February 5th; and Mark
> Cave-Ayland reviewed it on January 29th. However, the questions that
> I asked yesterday and the suggestions I made for reworking it have yet
> to be acted on, so it's going to take at least one more round of
> reviewing before this is ready for commit. Discounting my quick look
> on December 31st as not being a real review, that means this patch
> will have had at least six rounds of review before commit over about 4
> knngist is the final and most complex patch. We have 7 or 8 days left
> in the CommitFest. It has had zero reviews thus far. Are we going to
> accomplish six rounds of review in those 7 or 8 days? Or maybe more,
> since the patch is more complex and has far more interaction with the
> rest of the code than rbtree? I don't find that very realistic. I
> think the only way this is going to get committed in the next week is
> if we basically assume that everything is OK and commit it without a
> careful review, and I am not in favor of that. But perhaps someone
> else will advocate for it.
> Frankly, the politics of the end of the release cycle are a bit
> frustrating to me. If these patches had been submitted a few weeks
> sooner, they would have been reviewed in the 2009-11 CommitFest and we
> would be in much better shape right now.
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2010-02-07 20:23:06|
|Subject: Re: Confusion over Python drivers|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2010-02-07 19:54:35|
|Subject: Re: Confusion over Python drivers|