Commitfest II CLosed

Hi,

2013-10-19 17:20 keltez�ssel, David Fetter �rta:

Thanks very much to Mike Blackwell and Craig Kerstiens for their
persistence through what most people would consider a tedious and
thankless task. Thanks also to the patch submitters, reviewers and
other participants.

That the formal commitfest is over does not mean that your patch won't
get reviewed or committed until November. What it does mean is that
people will be setting patch review as a lower priority, frequently so
they can live their lives, work on new stuff, do their day jobs...

We got 20 patches, many quite significant, committed this time.
Kudos!

Cheers,
David.

what will happen to patches left in pending state in the 2013-09 CF?

Best regards,
Zolt�n B�sz�rm�nyi

--
----------------------------------
Zolt�n B�sz�rm�nyi
Cybertec Sch�nig & Sch�nig GmbH
Gr�hrm�hlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/

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

On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:42:10AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:

Hi,

2013-10-19 17:20 keltez�ssel, David Fetter �rta:

Thanks very much to Mike Blackwell and Craig Kerstiens for their
persistence through what most people would consider a tedious and
thankless task. Thanks also to the patch submitters, reviewers and
other participants.

That the formal commitfest is over does not mean that your patch won't
get reviewed or committed until November. What it does mean is that
people will be setting patch review as a lower priority, frequently so
they can live their lives, work on new stuff, do their day jobs...

We got 20 patches, many quite significant, committed this time.
Kudos!

Cheers,
David.

what will happen to patches left in pending state in the 2013-09 CF?

I have moved them to the next CF. This does not mean that they are
abandoned until then. I strongly suspect that people will be
reviewing and committing many of them between now and then.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

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

On 2013-10-20 08:12:37 -0700, David Fetter wrote:

what will happen to patches left in pending state in the 2013-09 CF?

I have moved them to the next CF. This does not mean that they are
abandoned until then. I strongly suspect that people will be
reviewing and committing many of them between now and then.

-1 for doing this in the future. The point of the CF is exactly that all
patches get at least one good round of review. Moving unreviewed patches
to the next CF will let them just suffer the same fate there.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

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

On 10/21/13 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:

The point of the CF is exactly that all
patches get at least one good round of review. Moving unreviewed patches
to the next CF will let them just suffer the same fate there.

What is the alternative?

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

On 2013-10-21 09:15:36 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

On 10/21/13 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:

The point of the CF is exactly that all
patches get at least one good round of review. Moving unreviewed patches
to the next CF will let them just suffer the same fate there.

What is the alternative?

I am not 100% sure, but what's the point of the CF if we're not actually
reviewing patches that wouldn't get review without it? So I guess it's
not starting the next one before we've finished - which we obviously
haven't in this case - the last one.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

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

On 21.10.2013 16:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

On 10/21/13 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:

The point of the CF is exactly that all
patches get at least one good round of review. Moving unreviewed patches
to the next CF will let them just suffer the same fate there.

Agreed. People have different views on what the purpose of a commitfest
is, but IMO the point is to make sure that every patch submitted gets at
least a cursory review in a timely fashion. Pushing patches to the next
one because no-one has gotten around to review them is a failure.

What is the alternative?

If no-one really cares enough about a patch to review it, mark it as
"rejected, because no-one but the patch author cares". Harsh, but that's
effectively what pushing to the next commitfest means anyway. Better to
be honest about it. At least that way the author can promote the patch's
virtues more on the mailing list, or personally contact someone who
might be interested, to get some attention, and resubmit if he thinks
that it might have a chance on the next commitfest.

Another alternative is to push harder to make sure that every patch gets
some review. I don't know how to accomplish that. Robert Haas did a
great job at that in the first few commitfests (IIRC), but only because
he personally spent a lot of time not only managing the commitfest but
actually reviewing the patches that no-one else bothered with. That's a
great way to make sure that every patch gets some attention, but I don't
think we have any takers for that role.

I feel guilty to complain, while not actually volunteering to be a
commitfest manager myself, but I wish the commitfest manager would be
more aggressive in nagging, pinging and threatening people to review
stuff. If nothing else, always feel free to nag me :-). Josh tried that
with the infamous Slacker List, but that backfired. Rather than posting
a public list of shame, I think it would work better to send short
off-list nag emails, or chat via IM. Something like "Hey, you've signed
up to review this. Any progress?". Or "Hey, could you take a look at X
please? No-one else seems to care about it."

- Heikki

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

On 10/21/2013 03:56 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:

I feel guilty to complain, while not actually volunteering to be a
commitfest manager myself, but I wish the commitfest manager would be
more aggressive in nagging, pinging and threatening people to review
stuff. If nothing else, always feel free to nag me :-). Josh tried
that with the infamous Slacker List, but that backfired. Rather than
posting a public list of shame, I think it would work better to send
short off-list nag emails, or chat via IM. Something like "Hey, you've
signed up to review this. Any progress?". Or "Hey, could you take a
look at X please? No-one else seems to care about it."

Or maybe even nag publicly with "list of orphans" - hey people, do you
*really* think that this patch is not needed ?

--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic O�

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

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> writes:

On 21.10.2013 16:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

What is the alternative?

If no-one really cares enough about a patch to review it, mark it as
"rejected, because no-one but the patch author cares". Harsh, but that's
effectively what pushing to the next commitfest means anyway.

Well, that could be the problem, but it's also possible that no one could
get to it in the alloted CF timeframe. Maybe the best-qualified reviewers
were on vacation, or maybe there were just too many patches. I could see
bouncing a patch on this basis if it doesn't get touched for, say, two
consecutive CFs.

regards, tom lane

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

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

On 2013-10-21 09:15:36 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

On 10/21/13 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:

The point of the CF is exactly that all
patches get at least one good round of review. Moving unreviewed patches
to the next CF will let them just suffer the same fate there.

What is the alternative?

I am not 100% sure, but what's the point of the CF if we're not actually
reviewing patches that wouldn't get review without it? So I guess it's
not starting the next one before we've finished - which we obviously
haven't in this case - the last one.

Yeah. There were a huge number of patches in this CommitFest that sat
around in the waiting on author state for hugely long periods of time.
One of the critical functions of the CommitFest manager(s) IMV is to
make sure that patches that are in that state get pushed to Returned
with Feedback so that it's more obvious which things are still alive
and kicking. That really wasn't done until about a week before the
end of the CommitFest, when I stepped in and did some of it. But that
really needs to be more of an ongoing process.

Supposedly, we have a policy that for each patch you submit, you ought
to review a patch. That right there ought to provide enough reviewers
for all the patches, but clearly it didn't. And I'm pretty sure that
some people (like me) looked at a lot MORE patches than they
themselves submitted. I think auditing who is not contributing in
that area and finding tactful ways to encourage them to contribute
would be a very useful service to the project.

Finally, I think we need to have some discussion of the patches that
are ready for committer but got punted, and see if we can figure out
whether any committer has plans to look at them. Those patches are:

Extension Templates - I think Peter Eisentraut commented on this one
at some stage, but I'm not sure if he's planning to work further on
it.
UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple functions - Heikki
did some work on this, maybe he's planning to commit it?
Numeric Aggregates Performance Improvement - I looked at this one
previously so should probably look it over again.
Statistics collection for CLUSTER command - Noah recommended rejecting
this on performance grounds. Maybe we should do that.
simple date time constructors - Alvaro previously looked at this, but
I don't know whether he plans to work on it further.
simple LO API - no committer interest to my knowledge
Bugfix for timeout in LDAP connection parameter resolution - I think
Peter Eisentraut is planning to commit this

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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

Actually, I did call them out in the thread announcing the CF Wrap Up (
/messages/by-id/CAESHdJonURj3i9HR2w4e=ohep5Hx7sNqyyDSGYWeQqa+A3dfEg@mail.gmail.com).

Looking back, it may have been better to post it as a separate thread, but
I'm not confident that would have made much difference.

__________________________________________________________________________________
*Mike Blackwell | Technical Analyst, Distribution Services/Rollout
Management | RR Donnelley*
1750 Wallace Ave | St Charles, IL 60174-3401
Office: 630.313.7818
Mike.Blackwell@rrd.com
http://www.rrdonnelley.com

<http://www.rrdonnelley.com/&gt;
* <Mike.Blackwell@rrd.com>*

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:

On 10/21/2013 05:13 PM, Mike Blackwell wrote:

Actually, I did call them out in the thread announcing the CF Wrap Up
(/messages/by-id/CAESHdJonURj3i9HR2w4e=ohep5Hx7sNqyyDSGYWeQqa+A3dfEg@mail.gmail.com).

Looking back, it may have been better to post it as a separate thread,
but I'm not confident that would have made much difference.

I was more thinking in lines of creating one thread per unreviewed
patch with patch title in Subject:, so that each could become its
own discussion

--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ

2013-10-21 17:11 keltez�ssel, Robert Haas �rta:

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

On 2013-10-21 09:15:36 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

On 10/21/13 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:

The point of the CF is exactly that all
patches get at least one good round of review. Moving unreviewed patches
to the next CF will let them just suffer the same fate there.

What is the alternative?

I am not 100% sure, but what's the point of the CF if we're not actually
reviewing patches that wouldn't get review without it? So I guess it's
not starting the next one before we've finished - which we obviously
haven't in this case - the last one.

Yeah. There were a huge number of patches in this CommitFest that sat
around in the waiting on author state for hugely long periods of time.
One of the critical functions of the CommitFest manager(s) IMV is to
make sure that patches that are in that state get pushed to Returned
with Feedback so that it's more obvious which things are still alive
and kicking. That really wasn't done until about a week before the
end of the CommitFest, when I stepped in and did some of it. But that
really needs to be more of an ongoing process.

Supposedly, we have a policy that for each patch you submit, you ought
to review a patch. That right there ought to provide enough reviewers
for all the patches, but clearly it didn't. And I'm pretty sure that
some people (like me) looked at a lot MORE patches than they
themselves submitted. I think auditing who is not contributing in
that area and finding tactful ways to encourage them to contribute
would be a very useful service to the project.

I wanted to get to this point, too.

I hoped that reviewing 4 patches in this CF (UNNEST, Extension templates,
DISCARD SEQUENCES, and extended RETURNING syntax) gets my huge patch reviewed.

I even provided a repo @github where it was broken up into pieces that can be sanely reviewed.
It still wasn't enough. Even Michael Meskes (ECPG is his pet project) and the guy @Fujitsu
who contacted me privately and expressed interest in this patch didn't chime in.
As a social experiment, the CF looks like a clear failure from this seat of mine. (Sorry.)

Finally, I think we need to have some discussion of the patches that
are ready for committer but got punted, and see if we can figure out
whether any committer has plans to look at them. Those patches are:

Extension Templates - I think Peter Eisentraut commented on this one
at some stage, but I'm not sure if he's planning to work further on
it.
UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple functions - Heikki
did some work on this, maybe he's planning to commit it?
Numeric Aggregates Performance Improvement - I looked at this one
previously so should probably look it over again.
Statistics collection for CLUSTER command - Noah recommended rejecting
this on performance grounds. Maybe we should do that.
simple date time constructors - Alvaro previously looked at this, but
I don't know whether he plans to work on it further.
simple LO API - no committer interest to my knowledge
Bugfix for timeout in LDAP connection parameter resolution - I think
Peter Eisentraut is planning to commit this

--
----------------------------------
Zolt�n B�sz�rm�nyi
Cybertec Sch�nig & Sch�nig GmbH
Gr�hrm�hlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/

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

Zoltan,

* Boszormenyi Zoltan (zb@cybertec.at) wrote:

I even provided a repo @github where it was broken up into pieces that can be sanely reviewed.

You also gave the first person looking at the patch a hard time about
asking for it to be broken up; unnecessairly, imv. Thanks for breaking
it up and for doing patch review of other patches- it does help the
project move forward. Try to be understanding when someone asks a
question that's already been answered; we're all quite busy and may
forget or miss things.

I don't know if Alvaro will have time to look into this or if he perhaps
already has, but I had noticed this patch earlier and it was one of the
ones I had hoped to take a look at, as I've been in the ECPG bits due to
the work with Coverity that I've been doing. I'll try and provide
feedback later this week/weekend on it.

Thanks,

Stephen

Tom,

If no-one really cares enough about a patch to review it, mark it
as "rejected, because no-one but the patch author cares". Harsh,
but that's effectively what pushing to the next commitfest means
anyway.

Well, that could be the problem, but it's also possible that no one
could get to it in the alloted CF timeframe. Maybe the
best-qualified reviewers were on vacation, or maybe there were just
too many patches. I could see bouncing a patch on this basis if it
doesn't get touched for, say, two consecutive CFs.

That would be more or less a declaration of failure by this project to
regulate our own development process, and an abandonment of the idea of
ever getting new contributors. If we don't guarantee legit patches at
least one review, why would anyone submit code to this project at all?

At some point folks on this list are going to admit that we have a
serious problem with reviews and reviewers, and that it's worth a
project-wide effort to do something about it. Apparently that day
hasn't come yet; most people are still in denial.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

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

Boszormenyi Zoltan escribi�:

I hoped that reviewing 4 patches in this CF (UNNEST, Extension templates,
DISCARD SEQUENCES, and extended RETURNING syntax) gets my huge patch reviewed.

I'm still on the hook for parts of this one (and also for Pavel's date
constructors stuff). I won't touch the ones that modify the core of
ecpg, but I hope I hope I will be able to look at the other ones to ease
work for Michael. I spent the last two weeks moving to another city,
which was pretty exhausting, so I wasn't able to get as much done as I
hoped. It's finally done now and today I got a stable network
connection in the new place.

--
�lvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

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

On 2013-10-21 09:58:30 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:

Tom,

If no-one really cares enough about a patch to review it, mark it
as "rejected, because no-one but the patch author cares". Harsh,
but that's effectively what pushing to the next commitfest means
anyway.

Well, that could be the problem, but it's also possible that no one
could get to it in the alloted CF timeframe. Maybe the
best-qualified reviewers were on vacation, or maybe there were just
too many patches. I could see bouncing a patch on this basis if it
doesn't get touched for, say, two consecutive CFs.

That would be more or less a declaration of failure by this project to
regulate our own development process, and an abandonment of the idea of
ever getting new contributors. If we don't guarantee legit patches at
least one review, why would anyone submit code to this project at all?

Well, who are you going to get to review things that they consider
simply bad ideas? I have no problem investing serious time in doing
detailed reviews of patches I can see the point of, but reviews of stuff
I think is pointless? Not really.

At some point folks on this list are going to admit that we have a
serious problem with reviews and reviewers, and that it's worth a
project-wide effort to do something about it. Apparently that day
hasn't come yet; most people are still in denial.

The fact that people do agree with your solutions, doesn't imply that
they don't care about the problem itself.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

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

On 10/21/2013 06:56 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:

I feel guilty to complain, while not actually volunteering to be a
commitfest manager myself, but I wish the commitfest manager would be
more aggressive in nagging, pinging and threatening people to review
stuff. If nothing else, always feel free to nag me :-). Josh tried that
with the infamous Slacker List, but that backfired. Rather than posting
a public list of shame, I think it would work better to send short
off-list nag emails, or chat via IM. Something like "Hey, you've signed
up to review this. Any progress?". Or "Hey, could you take a look at X
please? No-one else seems to care about it."

Yeah, that doesn't work at all. It's been tried. Before I published
the Slacker list, I emailed all of those folks privately (save one, due
to an address typo), and 90% of them didn't even respond. Public shame,
however reprehensible, was a vastly more effective motivator.

Well, it works with *you*. But you were reviewing patches anyway.

The simple problem is that, when it comes down to day-to-day work, our
hackers collectively simply don't prioritize the review process. Years
ago, people waited for Tom, Bruce, and Robert to review everything and
went and did their own stuff. Now people are waiting for the
CFM to organize everything, and go and do their own stuff. Either way,
the majority of our contributors are dumping responsibility on someone
else to see that review and commit happens, and that doesn't scale.

Every single person who contributes to this project needs to take
responsibility for making sure that patches get reviewed and committed,
and worth some inconvenience to keep working. Until we do that, our
review process will continue to be dysfunctional.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

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

On 10/21/2013 10:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote:

Well, who are you going to get to review things that they consider
simply bad ideas? I have no problem investing serious time in doing
detailed reviews of patches I can see the point of, but reviews of stuff
I think is pointless? Not really.

That's still a review, if you actually do it. "I don't think this patch
adds useful functionality because ..."

At some point folks on this list are going to admit that we have a
serious problem with reviews and reviewers, and that it's worth a
project-wide effort to do something about it. Apparently that day
hasn't come yet; most people are still in denial.

The fact that people do agree with your solutions, doesn't imply that
they don't care about the problem itself.

The fact that people don't propose of put any work into solutions of
their own, while opposing solutions proposed by others, shows that they
don't actually care. Where's your solution?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

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

On 2013-10-21 10:19:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:

On 10/21/2013 10:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote:

Well, who are you going to get to review things that they consider
simply bad ideas? I have no problem investing serious time in doing
detailed reviews of patches I can see the point of, but reviews of stuff
I think is pointless? Not really.

That's still a review, if you actually do it. "I don't think this patch
adds useful functionality because ..."

Which people usually aren't happy enough with to accept their patch is
refused. And usually you need a good amount of people disagreeing with
something to make it go away.
Those discussions usually take a good amount of energy. That many will
prefer on something they see as productive. Like reviewing patches they
see the point of.

At some point folks on this list are going to admit that we have a
serious problem with reviews and reviewers, and that it's worth a
project-wide effort to do something about it. Apparently that day
hasn't come yet; most people are still in denial.

The fact that people do agree with your solutions, doesn't imply that
they don't care about the problem itself.

The fact that people don't propose of put any work into solutions of
their own, while opposing solutions proposed by others, shows that they
don't actually care. Where's your solution?

I find it utterly ridiculous to accuse the people that *do* reviews of
not doing anything. By doing code-level reviews reviewers teach authors
and bystanders more about the code. Which actually can increase the
number of review(ers) and even committers in the long run.

And no, not having an own solution, doesn't turn somebody elses
non-solution into a solution.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

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