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

Re: Patch queue -> wiki (was varadic patch)

From: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>,Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch queue -> wiki (was varadic patch)
Date: 2008-04-03 14:04:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-www
The one concern I have with the way the last commitfest went (and I say
this as strictly an observer), there was no "discussion" on anything.

Now, I know that "discussion" happened, but it happened somewhere, in some
web-forum, in a community that seems to generally promote mailing lists
as the preferred method of "discussion".

As an observer, who generally doesn't have much input "code wise", but
occasionally might have an observation as a user, *I* would love to see
the "commitfest patch-queue" be something pretty "simple", along the
lines of a big list of:

1) item name, submission date, author
2a) item intention (maybe a see $MSGID)
2b) item (see $MSGID)
3) status summary (in discussion, applied, needs $improvements,
rejected, see $MSGID"

Note I said "item" because it appears as if the consensus is that the
commit-fest has to deal with more than just patches, but also proposals,
and "fork-in-the-road" details.

And no, I don't think it should included the 2K emails.  It should can
the $N "items" needing to be dealt with, and a list of pointers to
messages (which generally lead to threads), with a simple status
list/summary for each one (again with pointers to $MSGID where specific
information might be needed).

Basically, I would like to see the "patch queue" be more a
summary/pointer of/to discussion, then some web forum where the
discussion happens.  And I would like the "mailling lists" be where the
discussion of items in the patch queue happens.

But all this is the opinion of an observing devellopper, not involved in
any of the heavy-lifting, but as someone who would like to keep an eye
on what patches are presented, and their strengths/deficiencies, so that
when I present my first patch/proposal, hopefully I can avoid most of
the pitfalls.

But don't cater to me.  Cater to Tom and Bruce, who are the ones who
actually use whatever is in place.  Since they are the ones doing the
work, I have to accept (or ignore) whatever system they use.


* Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> [080402 19:36]:
> It is not clear to me how a wiki can be easily created for 2k emails and
> then maintained in a reasonable way, or how emails can be added to it
> easily.
> There are several steps:
> 	o  getting those 2k emails to start the commit fest
> 	o  getting them into a wiki in a way that is fast/efficient
> 	o  updating the wiki for changes efficiently
> Keep in mind the patch emails are pretty dynamic.  As you get closer to
> the end of the commit fest, the wiki is easier because the list of open
> items becomes more stable.
> I am able to give others the ability to add, move, and delete emails in
> my patch queue, if desired.
> If people want to use the wiki, go ahead --- this would be one less job
> for me to do.

Aidan Van Dyk                                             Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca                                       command like a king,                                   work like a slave.

In response to


pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-04-03 14:45:17
Subject: Re: Patch queue -> wiki (was varadic patch)
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2008-04-03 13:48:34
Subject: Re: UK mailing list

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2008-04-03 14:23:02
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3
Previous:From: Aidan Van DykDate: 2008-04-03 14:01:38
Subject: Re: modules

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group