Patches split from 7.3 queue

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

OK, I have done my best to split out the accepted patches from the other
open items in 7.3. My logic was to move any patch that generated no
negative feedback into the to-be-applied queue at:

Like Peter, I am *extremely* concerned that you seem to be taking an
apply-by-default approach to these queued patches. Most of them have
not seen any review, and it's unreasonable to expect the reviewers to
deal with such a huge pile in a short period of time.

At minimum, I want to take an approach of apply-only-after-positive-
review to these.

I would like to clean out both of these lists in the next week.

If you want it done that quickly, then reject 'em all. We all have
other tasks besides reviewing.

I don't normally like being this strict, but because of the unusually
long beta cycle for 7.2, we have a massive backlog here. We cannot
take a business-as-usual approach to dealing with it.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

OK, I have done my best to split out the accepted patches from the other
open items in 7.3. My logic was to move any patch that generated no
negative feedback into the to-be-applied queue at:

Like Peter, I am *extremely* concerned that you seem to be taking an
apply-by-default approach to these queued patches. Most of them have
not seen any review, and it's unreasonable to expect the reviewers to
deal with such a huge pile in a short period of time.

I really should have changed that message to 7 days. Sorry.

What really happened, I think, is with 7.2 in beta, patches didn't get
the full washing they would normally get from the group, so they aren't
as polished as usual. If we get some feedback to the submitter, we can
just delete them and go back to the normal process of
post/comment/queue.

At minimum, I want to take an approach of apply-only-after-positive-
review to these.

OK, shoot over some comments. Peter already sent over some nice ones.

I would like to clean out both of these lists in the next week.

If you want it done that quickly, then reject 'em all. We all have
other tasks besides reviewing.

I can do that.

I don't normally like being this strict, but because of the unusually
long beta cycle for 7.2, we have a massive backlog here. We cannot
take a business-as-usual approach to dealing with it.

Over one week? Wow. Most are jdbc or clear rejections, so once those
are gone, we should be able to deal with these more clearly. What I
_don't_ want is for this to drag on and on.

If I can not get comments on these within one week, I will apply/reject
them as best I can tell.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

I don't normally like being this strict, but because of the unusually
long beta cycle for 7.2, we have a massive backlog here. We cannot
take a business-as-usual approach to dealing with it.

Reasons I want to wrap this up in one week:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We just split off the CVS tree so it is a good time to do this.

Submitters have waited months for patch application.

The tree will get farther and farther out of sync with these patches,
making patch application harder as time goes on.

If no one can look at them in one week, I question whether a few more
weeks will make any difference.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

The tree will get farther and farther out of sync with these patches,
making patch application harder as time goes on.

Agreed, we cannot wait indefinitely.

If no one can look at them in one week, I question whether a few more
weeks will make any difference.

Personally, I'm under a deadline for some internal Red Hat work, so
this is not a good week to ask me to review stuff.

It might be best to bounce all the pending patches back to the
submitters, and ask them to resubmit whatever they think is the
latest version. Particularly with the jdbc stuff, I think some
of that got applied already. Also, for stuff that is already
out of date (and some of it is!), it seems better to distribute
the update/merge work instead of putting it all on your shoulders.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

The tree will get farther and farther out of sync with these patches,
making patch application harder as time goes on.

Agreed, we cannot wait indefinitely.

If no one can look at them in one week, I question whether a few more
weeks will make any difference.

Personally, I'm under a deadline for some internal Red Hat work, so
this is not a good week to ask me to review stuff.

Oh, I didn't realize that. That is a good argument to extend it,
certainly.

It might be best to bounce all the pending patches back to the
submitters, and ask them to resubmit whatever they think is the
latest version. Particularly with the jdbc stuff, I think some
of that got applied already. Also, for stuff that is already
out of date (and some of it is!), it seems better to distribute
the update/merge work instead of putting it all on your shoulders.

I will let the jdbc people chew on it. They are very good at
evaluating the jdbc stuff at this point. Let's see what's left after a
week. Peter's email to me sliced through a chunk of it already.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

[2002-02-23 16:11] Tom Lane said:
| Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
| > The tree will get farther and farther out of sync with these patches,
| > making patch application harder as time goes on.
|
| Agreed, we cannot wait indefinitely.

| It might be best to bounce all the pending patches back to the
| submitters, and ask them to resubmit whatever they think is the
| latest version. Particularly with the jdbc stuff, I think some
| of that got applied already. Also, for stuff that is already
| out of date (and some of it is!), it seems better to distribute
| the update/merge work instead of putting it all on your shoulders.

+1 I'm trying to make time to clean up (or complete ;-)) my
few patches for resubmission this weekend.

cheers.
brent

--
"Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman

It might be best to bounce all the pending patches back to the
submitters, and ask them to resubmit whatever they think is the
latest version. Particularly with the jdbc stuff, I think some
of that got applied already. Also, for stuff that is already
out of date (and some of it is!), it seems better to distribute
the update/merge work instead of putting it all on your shoulders.

I will let the jdbc people chew on it. They are very good at
evaluating the jdbc stuff at this point. Let's see what's left after a
week. Peter's email to me sliced through a chunk of it already.

Actually, looking over the 48 patches items, 50% are either obviously
trivial or are jdbc patches that the jdbc group will handle. Let me
pair this down. I don't think it is big a deal as people think.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026