| From: | Torsten Zuehlsdorff <mailinglists(at)toco-domains(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Releasing in September |
| Date: | 2016-01-26 09:19:21 |
| Message-ID: | 56A73A19.3030102@toco-domains.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26.01.2016 02:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/25/16 2:48 AM, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote:
>> Nobody, but there are different solutions. And the same solutions works
>> different in quality and quantity in the different projects.
>> In FreeBSD for example there is an online tool for review
>> (http://review.freebsd.org) which was opened to public. There you can
>> review any code, left comments in the parts you wanted, submit different
>> users to it etc.
>> It is not perfect, but a huge step forward for the project. And
>> something i misses here often.
>> But as stated earlier in another thread: for a not-so-deep-involved
>> volunteer, it is often unclear *what* to review. The threads are long
>> and often there is no final description about how the patch is supposed
>> to work. That make testing quite hard and time consuming.
>
> I agree better code review tooling could help a bit. The URL you post
> above doesn't work at the moment (for me), though.
I'm sorry, the url contains a typo. The correct one is:
https://reviews.freebsd.org/
Greetings,
Torsten
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-01-26 09:23:12 | Re: [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel) |
| Previous Message | andres@anarazel.de | 2016-01-26 08:10:15 | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |