Re: damage control mode

2010/2/7 Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>:
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think it might be time to revisit this issue.  SR is in, and we have
>>>> a week left in the CF, and we have all of the above patches plus 5
>>>> small ones left to deal with.  rbtree is close to being committable, I
>>>> think; knngist has not been reviewed yet; you (Tom) have claimed the
>>>> frame options patch but I haven't seen any update on it in a while; I
>>>> doubt either of the other two are ready to commit but I'm not sure how
>>>> far they have to go.
>>>
>>> I think, as previously discussed, that we should bounce knngist.    It's
>>> a complex patch and nobody saw anything of it until Jan 15, so I don't
>>> feel bad about it.  Mark Cave-Ayland was going to review it, but
>>> apparently felt that rbtree was the higher priority.
>
> Hey, I'm lost here, when we previously discussed, that knngist should be
> rejected ?

Huh? Have you been reading -hackers for the last month? I first
raised this issue on December 30th, and there has been lots more
discussion of it since then.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg02329.php

> knngist is a legal patch, submitted in time (and discussed in
> -hackers) and it's not our fault, people are busy doing other reviews.

I never said anything about fault. If there's not enough time to get
something committed, then there isn't. That's not a punishment; it's
just something that sometimes happens to patches submitted near the
end of the cycle. We've been openly discussing this problem on
-hackers for weeks. But since you brought it up, let's discuss what
has happened so far and the likelihood that this patch is going to be
committable in the next week.

> Knngist has some prerequisites,  rbtree, for example, and it took a while,
> but now, when we're close to commit rbtree, people can review knngist.

This patch is a group of three related patches: point_ops, rbtree, knngist.

point_ops, the simplest, was initially submitted on November 23rd. An
updated version was submitted on December 30th. I reviewed it on
December 31st and made some minor suggestions for improvement, which
Teodor accepted. It was committed on January 14th - so IOW, 1 review
and 14 days from first review to commit.

rbtree, which was more complex, was also submitted on November 23rd.
I took a quick look on it on December 31st, a more complete review on
January 10th, and a still more complete review on January 20th. I
reviewed it again on January 25th and again on February 5th; and Mark
Cave-Ayland reviewed it on January 29th. However, the questions that
I asked yesterday and the suggestions I made for reworking it have yet
to be acted on, so it's going to take at least one more round of
reviewing before this is ready for commit. Discounting my quick look
on December 31st as not being a real review, that means this patch
will have had at least six rounds of review before commit over about 4
weeks.

knngist is the final and most complex patch. We have 7 or 8 days left
in the CommitFest. It has had zero reviews thus far. Are we going to
accomplish six rounds of review in those 7 or 8 days? Or maybe more,
since the patch is more complex and has far more interaction with the
rest of the code than rbtree? I don't find that very realistic. I
think the only way this is going to get committed in the next week is
if we basically assume that everything is OK and commit it without a
careful review, and I am not in favor of that. But perhaps someone
else will advocate for it.

Frankly, the politics of the end of the release cycle are a bit
frustrating to me. If these patches had been submitted a few weeks
sooner, they would have been reviewed in the 2009-11 CommitFest and we
would be in much better shape right now.

...Robert