Re: postponing some large patches to 9.2

On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 09:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> > On the flip side, if we don't provide review to WIP patches during the
> > 3rd commitfest, how do we expect to get anything close to committable on
> > the 1st commitfest of the next cycle?
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you're going for here, because I don't think
> I've ever proposed any special treatment of patches in the third
> CommitFest,

I actually meant 4th (this one). I forgot that the July one was actually
a part of the 9.1 cycle.

> But if
> you were to say that WIP patches *in general* get a lot less review
> than non-WIP patches, I would agree with you.
>
> To some extent, I think that's inevitable. It's not fun to review WIP
> patches.

Agreed, but it doesn't really apply to this situation.

There was still a week left, and the reviewer was still reviewing. So I
found it jarring when you said that it had received enough review, and
bounced it.

In my opinion, if we're going to entertain WIP patches during a
commitfest, we shouldn't bounce them early for being WIP. We can bounce
them for other causes, like "waiting on author" or "we couldn't find a
reviewer" or "we're out of time".

> I've found that it's
> nearly always better to post specific questions that you want to know
> the answer to, rather than a patch where people have to guess what
> parts you want feedback on.

Well, I've certainly posted some specific questions. I don't expect to
get an answer to all of them right away, and certainly many have been
answered -- but I didn't just throw the code out and wait.

For instance:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1297230650.27157.398.camel@jdavis

Anyway, I don't think any of this affected the patch, I was just
surprised. I'll leave it at that, because I'm sure you're busy wrapping
up this commitfest.

Regards,
Jeff Davis