2021-09 Commitfest
It is now 2021-09-01 Anywhere On Earth so I’ve set the September commitfest to
In Progress and opened the November one for new entries. Jaime Casanova has
volunteered for CFM [0]/messages/by-id/20210826231608.GA7242@ahch-to, so let’s help him close the 284 still open items in
the queue.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:10:32PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
It is now 2021-09-01 Anywhere On Earth so I’ve set the September commitfest to
In Progress and opened the November one for new entries. Jaime Casanova has
volunteered for CFM [0], so let’s help him close the 284 still open items in
the queue.
Thank you Daniel for editing the commitfest entries, that's something I
cannot do.
And you're right, we have 284 patches in the queue (excluding committed,
returned with feedback, withdrawn and rejected)... 18 of them for more than
10 commitfests!
Needs review: 192.
Waiting on Author: 68.
Ready for Committer: 24
If you have a patch in this commitfest, please check in
http://commitfest.cputube.org/ if your patch still applies and passes
tests.
Thanks to all of you for your great work!
--
Jaime Casanova
Director de Servicios Profesionales
SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 4:26 PM Jaime Casanova
<jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:10:32PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
It is now 2021-09-01 Anywhere On Earth so I’ve set the September commitfest to
In Progress and opened the November one for new entries. Jaime Casanova has
volunteered for CFM [0], so let’s help him close the 284 still open items in
the queue.Thank you Daniel for editing the commitfest entries, that's something I
cannot do.
I've added cf admin permissions to you as well now.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:32:38PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 4:26 PM Jaime Casanova
<jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:10:32PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
It is now 2021-09-01 Anywhere On Earth so I’ve set the September commitfest to
In Progress and opened the November one for new entries. Jaime Casanova has
volunteered for CFM [0], so let’s help him close the 284 still open items in
the queue.Thank you Daniel for editing the commitfest entries, that's something I
cannot do.I've added cf admin permissions to you as well now.
I have the power! mwahahaha!
eh! i mean, thanks Magnus ;)
--
Jaime Casanova
Director de Servicios Profesionales
SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 09:26:33AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:10:32PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
It is now 2021-09-01 Anywhere On Earth so I’ve set the September commitfest to
In Progress and opened the November one for new entries. Jaime Casanova has
volunteered for CFM [0], so let’s help him close the 284 still open items in
the queue.Thank you Daniel for editing the commitfest entries, that's something I
cannot do.And you're right, we have 284 patches in the queue (excluding committed,
returned with feedback, withdrawn and rejected)... 18 of them for more than
10 commitfests!Needs review: 192.
Waiting on Author: 68.
Ready for Committer: 24
Hi everyone,
On the first 10 days of this commitfest some numbers have moved, mostly
thanks to Daniel Gustafsson and good work from committers:
Needs review: 171.
Waiting on Author: 79.
Ready for Committer: 15.
How could we advance on the "needs review" queue? It's just too long!
--
Jaime Casanova
Director de Servicios Profesionales
SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL
Hi Jaime,
Needs review: 171.
Waiting on Author: 79.
Ready for Committer: 15.How could we advance on the "needs review" queue? It's just too long!
For the record, some patches marked as "Needs review" are in fact
rotted and need to be rebased http://cfbot.cputube.org/ I notified
several authors and changed the status to "Waiting for Author", but
somehow I don't feel comfortable doing it for 40+ patches at once...
Also, I recall that in the past the fact that the patch doesn't pass
CI was not considered enough not to review it.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 12:52:10AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 09:26:33AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:10:32PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
It is now 2021-09-01 Anywhere On Earth so I’ve set the September commitfest to
In Progress and opened the November one for new entries. Jaime Casanova has
volunteered for CFM [0], so let’s help him close the 284 still open items in
the queue.Thank you Daniel for editing the commitfest entries, that's something I
cannot do.And you're right, we have 284 patches in the queue (excluding committed,
returned with feedback, withdrawn and rejected)... 18 of them for more than
10 commitfests!Needs review: 192.
Waiting on Author: 68.
Ready for Committer: 24Hi everyone,
On the first 10 days of this commitfest some numbers have moved, mostly
thanks to Daniel Gustafsson and good work from committers:Needs review: 171.
Waiting on Author: 79.
Ready for Committer: 15.
Hi,
During this commitfest there around 40 patches committed, there where
some patches already committed at the beggining.
Committed: 55.
In the last hours Michael Paquier made a scan over the patch queue and
even after that we still have a lot of patches open.
Needs review: 131.
Waiting on Author: 47.
Ready for Committer: 12.
I understand this CF was in the middle of the release of 14 and that
affected too.
Anyway we need to advance to a close, so I need help with:
- what should we do with WoA patches? moving them to the Next CF?
- How can we reduce the number of Needs Review patches? some of them
have been in silence for more than a month!
--
Jaime Casanova
Director de Servicios Profesionales
SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 08:53:23AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
Anyway we need to advance to a close, so I need help with:
- what should we do with WoA patches? moving them to the Next CF?
Correcting myself, we cannot move WoA patches. So we should just close
them with RwF.
Barring objections I will do that in the next couple of hours.
--
Jaime Casanova
Director de Servicios Profesionales
SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL
Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> writes:
Correcting myself, we cannot move WoA patches. So we should just close
them with RwF.
Uh, really? I don't think that's been common practice in the past.
I thought we generally just pushed everything forward to the next CF
with the same status.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 01:34:45PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> writes:
Correcting myself, we cannot move WoA patches. So we should just close
them with RwF.Uh, really? I don't think that's been common practice in the past.
I thought we generally just pushed everything forward to the next CF
with the same status.
Actually i thought the same thing but found that I couldn't.
Just tried again to get the error message: "A patch in status Waiting on
Author cannot be moved to next commitfest."
--
Jaime Casanova
Director de Servicios Profesionales
SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL
On 10/1/21 1:31 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 08:53:23AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
Anyway we need to advance to a close, so I need help with:
- what should we do with WoA patches? moving them to the Next CF?
Correcting myself, we cannot move WoA patches. So we should just close
them with RwF.Barring objections I will do that in the next couple of hours.
Isn't the usual procedure to change their status, move them, and then
change it back again? ISTR something like that when I managed a CF.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 01:43:23PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/1/21 1:31 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 08:53:23AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
Anyway we need to advance to a close, so I need help with:
- what should we do with WoA patches? moving them to the Next CF?
Correcting myself, we cannot move WoA patches. So we should just close
them with RwF.Barring objections I will do that in the next couple of hours.
Isn't the usual procedure to change their status, move them, and then
change it back again? ISTR something like that when I managed a CF.
Really?! That sounds tedious!
I will do that but we should improve that process.
--
Jaime Casanova
Director de Servicios Profesionales
SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL
Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> writes:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 01:43:23PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Isn't the usual procedure to change their status, move them, and then
change it back again? ISTR something like that when I managed a CF.
Really?! That sounds tedious!
I will do that but we should improve that process.
Indeed, that seems pretty silly.
regards, tom lane
On 1 Oct 2021, at 19:49, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 01:43:23PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Isn't the usual procedure to change their status, move them, and then
change it back again? ISTR something like that when I managed a CF.
Correct, if one looks at the activity log for an old entry the pattern of
moving to needs review, then to the next CF, then WoA is clearly visible.
Really?!
Sadly yes.
That sounds tedious!
Correct.
I will do that but we should improve that process.
Correct again.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 08:29:08PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Correct, if one looks at the activity log for an old entry the pattern of
moving to needs review, then to the next CF, then WoA is clearly visible.
That's the tricky part. It does not really make sense either to keep
moving patches that are waiting on author for months. The scan of the
CF app I have done was about those idle patches waiting on author for
months. It takes time as authors and/or reviewers tend to sometimes
not update the status of a patch so the state in the app does not
reflect the reality, but this vacuuming limits the noise in for the
next CFs.
That sounds tedious!
Correct.
It consumes power.
--
Michael
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
That's the tricky part. It does not really make sense either to keep
moving patches that are waiting on author for months. The scan of the
CF app I have done was about those idle patches waiting on author for
months. It takes time as authors and/or reviewers tend to sometimes
not update the status of a patch so the state in the app does not
reflect the reality, but this vacuuming limits the noise in for the
next CFs.
Yeah. I have been thinking of looking through the oldest CF entries
and proposing that we just reject any that look permanently stalled.
It doesn't do much good to leave things in the list when there's
no apparent interest in pushing them to conclusion. But I've not
done the legwork yet, and I'm a little worried about the push-back
that will inevitably result.
regards, tom lane
On 2021-Oct-01, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 1 Oct 2021, at 19:49, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
I will do that but we should improve that process.
Correct again.
I think if we all agree that this is a desired workflow, then we should
update the app to allow WoA patches to be moved to next CF.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La fuerza no está en los medios físicos
sino que reside en una voluntad indomable" (Gandhi)
On 2021-Oct-02, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah. I have been thinking of looking through the oldest CF entries
and proposing that we just reject any that look permanently stalled.
It doesn't do much good to leave things in the list when there's
no apparent interest in pushing them to conclusion. But I've not
done the legwork yet, and I'm a little worried about the push-back
that will inevitably result.
I was just going to say the same thing yesterday, and reference [1]/messages/by-id/20190930182818.GA25331@alvherre.pgsql
when I did it once in 2019. I think it was a useful cleanup exercise.
In hindsight, some of these patches were resubmitted later, and those
are either still ongoing or are already committed.
[1]: /messages/by-id/20190930182818.GA25331@alvherre.pgsql
(I did have the luxury of a local copy of the commitfest database, which
is perhaps a service we could offer to CFMs to make their lives easier.)
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Digital and video cameras have this adjustment and film cameras don't for the
same reason dogs and cats lick themselves: because they can." (Ken Rockwell)
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
I think if we all agree that this is a desired workflow, then we should
update the app to allow WoA patches to be moved to next CF.
I'm fairly astonished that anyone would have thought that that
*wasn't* an expected case. For example, if someone reviews a
patch and sets the status to WoA on the last day of the CF,
what then? You can't expect the patch author to respond
instantaneously.
regards, tom lane
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
On 2021-Oct-02, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah. I have been thinking of looking through the oldest CF entries
and proposing that we just reject any that look permanently stalled.
I was just going to say the same thing yesterday, and reference [1]
when I did it once in 2019. I think it was a useful cleanup exercise.
[1] /messages/by-id/20190930182818.GA25331@alvherre.pgsql
Right. Michael and Jaime have been doing some of that too in the last
few days, but obviously a CFM should only do that unilaterally in very
clear-cut cases of patch abandonment. I was intending to go after some
where maybe a bit of community consensus is needed for rejection.
regards, tom lane