Thread: Is there a committer in the house?
All, Currently we have 8 patches "Ready for Committer" in the current CF. Some of them have been that status for some time. From traffic on this list, I'm getting the impression that nobody other than Robert, Heikki and Tom are committing other people's patches. I know we have more committers than that. Bruce? Simon? Itagaki? Bueller? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Currently we have 8 patches "Ready for Committer" in the current CF. > Some of them have been that status for some time. > > From traffic on this list, I'm getting the impression that nobody other > than Robert, Heikki and Tom are committing other people's patches. I > know we have more committers than that. Bruce? Simon? Itagaki? Bueller? Someone called Simon Riggs has committed one patch by another author and reviewed 3 others, as well as spending many days working on bugs for beta. It would be sensible if people based their comments on actual events rather than negative impressions. ISTM that you are right that there are other committers that have not done anything. How strange that you name myself, yet not others. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
> ISTM that you are right that there are other committers that have not > done anything. How strange that you name myself, yet not others. Touchy today, eh? And I do name others, read the email again. Anyway, my question is: the list of committers I know of who have general knowledge of the codebase and can commit a wide variety of other people's patches are: Tom Robert Heikki Bruce Simon Who else? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Josh Berkus wrote: > > > ISTM that you are right that there are other committers that have not > > done anything. How strange that you name myself, yet not others. > > Touchy today, eh? > > And I do name others, read the email again. > > Anyway, my question is: the list of committers I know of who have > general knowledge of the codebase and can commit a wide variety of other > people's patches are: > > Tom > Robert > Heikki > Bruce > Simon I have found my reading of the email lists is too delayed to effectively commit other's patches. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On tor, 2011-07-14 at 12:01 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Currently we have 8 patches "Ready for Committer" in the current CF. > Some of them have been that status for some time. > > >From traffic on this list, I'm getting the impression that nobody other > than Robert, Heikki and Tom are committing other people's patches. I > know we have more committers than that. Bruce? Simon? Itagaki? Bueller? I'm still working on preparing 9.1. I'm not following 9.2 development yet.
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of jue jul 14 15:01:10 -0400 2011: > All, > > Currently we have 8 patches "Ready for Committer" in the current CF. > Some of them have been that status for some time. > > From traffic on this list, I'm getting the impression that nobody other > than Robert, Heikki and Tom are committing other people's patches. I > know we have more committers than that. Bruce? Simon? Itagaki? Bueller? It seems that by mentioning some people but not all, you offended both the people you mentioned (at least some of them, because they are already actively helping) and those that you didn't (at least some of them, because they are already actively helping; those that are not completely inactive in the project, that is). -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Alvaro, > It seems that by mentioning some people but not all, you offended both > the people you mentioned (at least some of them, because they are > already actively helping) and those that you didn't (at least some of > them, because they are already actively helping; those that are not > completely inactive in the project, that is). Yeah, everybody's super-touchy this week. Must be the weather. Speaking of which, is there anything you could commit? ;-) -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of vie jul 15 16:32:42 -0400 2011: > Alvaro, > > > It seems that by mentioning some people but not all, you offended both > > the people you mentioned (at least some of them, because they are > > already actively helping) and those that you didn't (at least some of > > them, because they are already actively helping; those that are not > > completely inactive in the project, that is). > > Yeah, everybody's super-touchy this week. Must be the weather. It's been regularly horrible here, so yeah, that might explain it. > Speaking of which, is there anything you could commit? ;-) I intend to give the finishing touches to Pavel's plpgsql patch and commit, so that's one item to take off the list. Everything else seems to be in somebody else's hands, or is larger than I can grab ATM. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Josh Berkus wrote: > Alvaro, > > > It seems that by mentioning some people but not all, you offended both > > the people you mentioned (at least some of them, because they are > > already actively helping) and those that you didn't (at least some of > > them, because they are already actively helping; those that are not > > completely inactive in the project, that is). > > Yeah, everybody's super-touchy this week. Must be the weather. Somehow blaming everyone else doesn't seem like the proper reaction. :-( -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
>> Yeah, everybody's super-touchy this week. Must be the weather. > > Somehow blaming everyone else doesn't seem like the proper reaction. :-( Look, it wasn't meant to be a complete list, or even a representative one. That's why I tagged a "Bueller?" at the end. Even for those who don't get the reference, there should have been a "Who the hell is Bueller?" You might notice that we don't publish a list of committers anywhere. In fact, *I* don't have one. So when I want to say "hey, who could be doing committing and isn't currently?" I don't have any way to answer that question. Which is why I posted the e-mail. So, I reiterate: who do we have, as committers, who are capable of committing a fairly wide array of patches? This would be good information for every CF Manager to have, when things start getting stuck in "ready for committer". -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > You might notice that we don't publish a list of committers anywhere. > In fact, *I* don't have one. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committers regards, tom lane
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committers Oh, thanks! I didn't know that existed. So, if any of the following people could possibly pick up even one patch from the current commitfest and commit it, it would clear out our pending commit list: * Bruce Momjian * Tatsuo Ishii * Andrew Dunstan * Magnus Hagander * Greg Stark * Itagaki Takahiro ... noting that I have already heard from Simon, Joe, Alvaro, Tom, Robert, Peter and Heikki. I'm basing the above list on (a) some knowledge of which folks only seem to work on very specific areas of code, and (b) looking at pgsql-committers for the past 3 weeks. In any case, it seems like we have a pool of 13 people would could be committing general patches every commitfest. Not a huge number considering the number of patches we get, but more than I see actually committing stuff for most CFs. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of vie jul 15 18:33:14 -0400 2011: > > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committers > > Oh, thanks! I didn't know that existed. > > So, if any of the following people could possibly pick up even one patch > from the current commitfest and commit it, it would clear out our > pending commit list: The "ready for committer" state does not mean that the committer can grab the patch and apply it. Last time I checked, one was still expected to review it and take full responsibility for any breakage caused by it. Given this, I cannot responsibly grab more than a couple patches, because then I'd be swamped when bug reports started coming in. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Alvaro, > The "ready for committer" state does not mean that the committer can > grab the patch and apply it. Last time I checked, one was still > expected to review it and take full responsibility for any breakage > caused by it. You're absolutely correct. Which is why committer bandwidth is such a choke point. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> Alvaro, >> >> > It seems that by mentioning some people but not all, you offended both >> > the people you mentioned (at least some of them, because they are >> > already actively helping) and those that you didn't (at least some of >> > them, because they are already actively helping; those that are not >> > completely inactive in the project, that is). >> >> Yeah, everybody's super-touchy this week. Must be the weather. > > Somehow blaming everyone else doesn't seem like the proper reaction. :-( I don't think Josh's tone is really the problem we should be worrying about here. He's pointing out a legitimate problem. If you go back and look at the CF app for 9.1, you'll see that Tom, Peter, and I committed the overwhelming majority of the patches which were submitted to CFs and went on to get committed. So if we have a CommitFest where Tom is on vacation and Peter is devoting his time to polishing release N-1 rather than new development on release N, then we're either going to need a much larger investment of time by one or more other committers, or we're not really going to get through everything. When you lose the efforts of somebody who might commit 10 or 20 patches in a CF and comment usefully on another 10 or 20, it leaves a big hole. I don't believe Josh's intent was to disparage your contributions, or Simon's, or Alvaro's, and it certainly isn't mine. I appreciate all the work that has been done on this CommitFest by everyone who has participated, reviewers as well as committers. At the same time, part of the thankless task of being CF manager is asking people to step up to the plate and do more. It takes a heck of a lot of work to get 70 patches reviewed and committed, and it is unlikely that we will ever have enough people spontaneously step up to the plate to make that happen. Since we can't call up people's bosses and complain that they aren't doing enough work on the CommitFest, the CF manager is left with the options of (1) trying to review (and commit?) all 30 or 40 remaining patches single-handedly or (2) begging. If we're then going to complain when they do one or both of those things, well, I think that's a bit unfair. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Alvaro, > >> > >> > It seems that by mentioning some people but not all, you offended both > >> > the people you mentioned (at least some of them, because they are > >> > already actively helping) and those that you didn't (at least some of > >> > them, because they are already actively helping; those that are not > >> > completely inactive in the project, that is). > >> > >> Yeah, everybody's super-touchy this week. ? Must be the weather. > > > > Somehow blaming everyone else doesn't seem like the proper reaction. ?:-( > > I don't think Josh's tone is really the problem we should be worrying > about here. He's pointing out a legitimate problem. If you go back > and look at the CF app for 9.1, you'll see that Tom, Peter, and I > committed the overwhelming majority of the patches which were > submitted to CFs and went on to get committed. So if we have a > CommitFest where Tom is on vacation and Peter is devoting his time to > polishing release N-1 rather than new development on release N, then > we're either going to need a much larger investment of time by one or > more other committers, or we're not really going to get through > everything. When you lose the efforts of somebody who might commit 10 > or 20 patches in a CF and comment usefully on another 10 or 20, it > leaves a big hole. This mostly revoles around the problem of trying to finalize 9.1 while applying 9.2 patches --- no surprise we don't have enough cycles to do that. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > This mostly revoles around the problem of trying to finalize 9.1 while > applying 9.2 patches --- no surprise we don't have enough cycles to do > that. Well, sorta. The fact that Josh got his head bitten off for suggesting that we weren't going to get this CommitFest finished without some more committer involvement could have happened at any time in the release cycle (and has, in the past). I think the question of whether we can overlap release cycles is a bit of a red herring. We had our first CommitFest for 9.1 in July 2010, and that ran quite smoothly, though it was also a release-cycle overlap. One big difference this time is that Tom and Peter haven't participated in this CommitFest very much at all (and I've done less as well, due to other commitments), whereas they did last time around.So I think the real question is not "how much bandwidthdo we have as a community?" but rather "what works for the key people who make the process function?" and maybe "how can we induce other people to make the kind of time commitment that Tom and Peter have in the past?". I think the fact that we've managed to get 18 patches committed - and will probably squeeze in a few more - despite Tom and Peter being busy is pretty good. But it certainly emphasizes the extent to which we depend on a relatively small number of contributors to do an awful lot of the work. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company