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

Re: Review request: XLogInsert

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-rrreviewers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-rrreviewers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review request: XLogInsert
Date: 2009-12-06 17:18:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-rrreviewers
Robert Haas wrote:
> Not to distract from the issue at hand, but that goal doesn't seem 
> quite aggressive enough, considering that this is the last week of the 
> CommitFest, or near enough.  Do you have a plan for wrapping this up?
To step back for a second, the fact that I have to create a plan shows a 
failure in our getting this turned into a real process.  That what I've 
been trying to do here--step back each week and figure out what I should 
have done, and try to make it more likely that will happen the next 
time.  We should have a clear plan charted that says what will happen at 
each step here.

It looks to me like the end of the previous CF work finished via a huge 
amount of "patch chasing" work from you and possibly other helpers (I 
don't know, as I haven't gotten any such help myself the last few 
weeks).  That was fine since you were blazing a trail here, but that's 
not a sustainable model.  This whole thing needs clear written deadlines 
and process if it's going to run more automatically in the future.  CF 
manager and helper labor isn't easy to find an unlimited amount of.  I'd 
like to turn this all into something more like a state machine whose 
transitions are marked out on the calendar from day one.

At around three weeks, where we're at now, I think what should happen 
next is:

1) All "waiting for author patches" turn into "returned with feedback" 
as of some deadline.  Since there wasn't one in advance, maybe I 
announce one on the hackers list today?

2) Poll the reviewer of every patch that's had an updated version who 
hasn't submitted a re-review asking whether they think that version is 
"ready for comitter" now, if they have more feedback, or if they feel 
it's just not ready yet and should be rejected.  In any case but "ready 
for committer", it goes into "returned with feedback" pile.

3) Any patches in this state that we haven't heard back from the 
reviewer on within a couple of days get decided on ("ready" / 
"returned") at the CommitFest manager's discretion.  If anyone feels 
wronged by that, they can always ask that a committer take a look 
anyway.  The CF manager won't always have as much information as we 
expect the reviewers to, and can be presumed to have a thicker skin 
about people getting mad at them for making a bad decision too.

I have a deliverable to ship today, once I'm done with that I'll start 
rattling people more.  Feedback about tweaking the above before I start 
executing on it would be appreciated.

Greg Smith    2ndQuadrant   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to


pgsql-rrreviewers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-12-06 23:42:43
Subject: Re: Review request: XLogInsert
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-12-06 15:59:22
Subject: Re: Review request: XLogInsert

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group