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

Fwd: [HACKERS] Closing out CommitFest 2009-11

From: decibel <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: austinpug(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Fwd: [HACKERS] Closing out CommitFest 2009-11
Date: 2009-12-22 22:28:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: austinpugpgsql-hackers
So the last commit fest begins 2 days after our meeting. We could still participate though; I'm sure there's plenty of stuff that could be pre-reviewed on the 13th. It's unlikely we'd be able to help by the Feb. meeting.

The other option mentioned was a hack-a-thon. I think it would be best to re-visit that idea later in the year. Only the most trivial of patches would be able to be completed and make it into the commit fest in time.

Another possibility that comes to mind is to see if we can help in some way with beta testing, though obviously that wouldn't be for January.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> Date: December 19, 2009 1:30:43 AM CST
> To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Closing out CommitFest 2009-11
> CommitFest 2009-11 is now closed, having committed 27 patches in 33 days.  For comparison sake, 2009-09 committed 20 patches in 29 days, 2009-07 37 patches in 34 days, and 2008-09 29 patches in 30 days.  The much bigger 2008-11 involved 58 patches going on for months, the bulk of it committed 28 patches in 36 days.
> Seems pretty consistent at this point:  at the average patch contribution size seen over the last year, about one of those gets committed per day once we enter a CommitFest.  I didn't bother accounting for things that were committed outside of the official dates, so it's actually a bit worse than that, but that gives a rough idea that's easy to remember.
> Also, just based on the last three CFs, 42% of patches are either returned with feedback or rejected (with quite a bit more CF to CF variation).  The working estimation figure I'd suggest is that once a CF reaches 50 incoming patches it's unlikely that will finish in a month.
> CommitFest 2010-01, the last one for 8.5, begins on January 15th, 2010.  I'll be out of commission with projects by then, so unless Robert wants to reprise his role as CF manager we may need to get someone else involved to do it.  Between the CF application and how proactive everyone involved is at this point (almost all authors, reviewers, and committers do the bulk of the state changes and link to messages in the archives for you), the job of running things does keep getting easier.  And the guidlines for how to be the CF manager are pretty nailed down now--you could just execute on a pretty mechanical plan and expect to make useful progress.  It's still a lot of time though.  I've never had an appreciation for exactly how many messages flow through this list like I do now, after a month of needing to read and pay attention to every single one of them.
> For those of you still furiously working on a patch with that deadline, if you have a large patch and it's not already been reviewed in a previous CommitFest, I wouldn't give you good odds of it being even looked at during that one.  There doesn't seem to be any official warning of this where people will likely notice it, but this topic has been discussed on the list here.  Large patches submitted just before the deadline for a release have not fared very well historically.  Recognizing that, there's really no tolerance for chasing after them (at the expense of postponing the beta) left for this release.  Just figured I'd pass along that warning before somebody discovers it the hard way, by working madly to finish their submission up only to see it get kicked to the next version anyway.
> -- 
> Greg Smith    2ndQuadrant   Baltimore, MD
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
> greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:

Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell)               

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: decibelDate: 2009-12-22 23:17:19
Subject: Re: Range types
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-12-22 22:16:35
Subject: Re: LIKE INCLUDING COMMENTS code is a flight of fancy

austinpug by date

Next:From: Jon ErdmanDate: 2010-01-06 17:12:35
Subject: Re: Fwd: [HACKERS] Closing out CommitFest 2009-11
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-12-19 12:06:50
Subject: Re: Closing out CommitFest 2009-11

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