Re: Considering Gerrit for CFs

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 2/8/13 5:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> But do you have any actual proof that the problem is in "we
>> loose reviewers because we're relying on email"?
>
> Here is one: Me.
>
> Just yesterday I downloaded a piece of software that was previously
> unknown to me from GitHub and found a bug. Within 15 minutes or so I
> had fixed the bug, made a fork, sent a pull request. Today I read, the
> fix was merged last night, and I'm happy.
>
> How would this go with PostgreSQL? You can use the bug form on the web
> site, but you can't attach any code, so the bug will just linger and
> ultimately put more burden on a core contributor to deal with the
> minutiae of developing, testing, and committing a trivial fix and
> sending feedback to the submitter. Or the user could take the high road
> and develop and patch and submit it. Just make sure it's in context
> diff format! Search the wiki if you don't know how to do that! Send it
> to -hackers, your email will be held for moderation. We won't actually
> do anything with your patch, but we will tell you to add it to that
> commitfest app over there. You need to sign up for an account to use
> that. We will deal with your patch in one or two months. But only if
> you review another patch. And you should sign up for that other mailing
> list, to make sure you're doing it right. Chances are, the first review
> you're going to get is that your patch doesn't apply anymore, but which
> time you will have lost interest in the patch anyway.

This. This times 1000.

>
> So, I don't have any further evidence that we are losing reviewers, but
> in light of the above and the options out there were interested
> developers can contribute much more easily, I'm amazed that we are
> getting any new contributors or reviewers at all.
>
> Of course, Gerrit doesn't actually address most of the issues above, but
> it could be part of a step forward.
>

I'm not sure if Gerrit specifically is the answer, but there are
definitely better ways to do code review like this. I really like the
way github allows you to post a patch and then have conversation
around it, offer comments on specific lines of code, and add updates
to the patch all in one interface. Another benefit is that a lot more
people are familiar and comfortable with this work flow. There are
even some open source work-a-likes that we could use to we don't have
to rely on a 3rd party like github. Gerrit seems to do it slightly
differently with side by side diff's and patch revisions, but either
way would be an improvement.

I understand there are other concerns in this thread, like email, etc.
I don't have a comprehensive plan that solves all this, but I wanted
to add my +1 to the idea of something more sophisticated when it comes
to code review.

>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers