| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest overflow |
| Date: | 2021-08-05 13:06:54 |
| Message-ID: | ca35ff77-3a96-9b26-8a3d-997056e24e1e@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/5/21 8:39 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Early commitfests recognized a rule that patch authors owed one review per
>> patch registered in the commitfest. If authors were holding to that, then
>> both submissions and reviews would slow during vacations, but the neglected
>> fraction of the commitfest would be about the same. I think it would help to
>> track each author's balance (reviews_done - reviews_owed).
>
> +1 for tracking this.
Yeah, I agree we should be stricter about this rule, but I'm somewhat
skeptical about tracking it in the CF app - judging patch and review
complexity seems quite subjective, etc.
> BTW when review is done? When first revision is published? Or when patch is committed\rollbacked?
> When the review is owed? At the moment when patch is submitted? Or when it is committed?
>
I think the rule is roughly that when you submit a patch to a CF, you're
expected to review a patch of comparable complexity in the same CF. It's
not tied to whether the patch is committed, etc.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-08-05 13:18:11 | Re: A varint implementation for PG? |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-08-05 12:49:14 | Re: Commitfest overflow |