From: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Opinion poll: Sending an automated email to a thread when it gets added to the commitfest |
Date: | 2024-09-26 18:57:21 |
Message-ID: | CAGECzQTOu6QrCRw4KZ0T5m60tj5WPBSVyS5Za_-GjLYE_uXL7A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 26 Sept 2024 at 08:06, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Focusing on the first patch seems odd to me, though
Indeed the first few patches will often be small, and the big patch
will appear later. When I split patches up, those small patches should
usually be reviewable without looking at the big patch in detail, and
hopefully they shouldn't be too contentious: e.g. a comment
improvement or some small refactor. But often those patches don't seem
to be reviewed significantly quicker or merged significantly earlier
than the big patch. That makes it seem to me that even though they
should be relatively low-risk to commit and low-effort to review,
reviewers are scared away by the sheer number of patches in the
patchset, or by the size of the final patch. That's why I thought it
could be useful to specifically show the size of the first patch in
addition to the total patchset size, so that reviewers can easily spot
some small hopefully easy to review patch at the start of a patchset.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-09-26 18:58:24 | Re: miscellaneous pg_upgrade cleanup |
Previous Message | diPhantxm | 2024-09-26 18:30:08 | Truncate logs by max_log_size |