| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Torsten Zühlsdorff <mailinglists(at)toco-domains(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Releasing in September |
| Date: | 2016-01-26 01:09:54 |
| Message-ID: | 56A6C762.1000003@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/25/16 2:48 AM, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote:
> Nobody, but there are different solutions. And the same solutions works
> different in quality and quantity in the different projects.
> In FreeBSD for example there is an online tool for review
> (http://review.freebsd.org) which was opened to public. There you can
> review any code, left comments in the parts you wanted, submit different
> users to it etc.
> It is not perfect, but a huge step forward for the project. And
> something i misses here often.
> But as stated earlier in another thread: for a not-so-deep-involved
> volunteer, it is often unclear *what* to review. The threads are long
> and often there is no final description about how the patch is supposed
> to work. That make testing quite hard and time consuming.
I agree better code review tooling could help a bit. The URL you post
above doesn't work at the moment (for me), though.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-01-26 01:21:18 | Re: Add generate_series(date, date) and generate_series(date, date, integer) |
| Previous Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2016-01-26 01:06:46 | Re: CustomScan in a larger structure (RE: CustomScan support on readfuncs.c) |