Re: commitfest 2016-11 status summary

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: commitfest 2016-11 status summary
Date: 2016-12-06 01:04:12
Message-ID: b2aeace9-0b09-3fca-64cd-06617dec2839@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/5/16 3:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Moved to next CF with needs review.
>> 1. patch doesn't receive any full review in the commitfest
>> 2. Patch received feedback at the end of commitfest.
>
> The number of patches that got this treatment seems quite large. If
> the people who are submitting patches are also reviewing other patches
> of comparable difficulty, this really shouldn't be happening.
> Something isn't working well, here.

Yeah. :( (and I'm embarrassed to admit I'm part of the problem :()

I think it would be good to have a different status for patches that got
bumped to the next CF due to insufficient review. It's already unfair to
authors, but at least if there was a separate status those patches could
be prioritized next time around. It would also allow tracking how big a
problem that is from one CF to the next.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joseph Brenner 2016-12-06 01:13:07 Re: Select works only when connected from login postgres
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2016-12-06 00:54:12 Re: Separate connection handling from backends