[RRR] CommitFest 2010-07 week one progress report
in [PgSql]
|
From: Robert Haas on 22 Jul 2010 14:51 On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner(a)wicourts.gov> wrote: > 48 pending > �8 ready for committer Note that all of the patches except one which are marked as "Ready for Committer" were either submitted by a committer, or the reviewer is a committer. Of those, 3 are mine. Two of those are patches I'm postponing committing at the request of Tom Lane to avoid making the 9.1 and 9.0 trees drift too much before 9.0 is out. However, given the rapidly decreasing frequency of commits to the 9.0 branch, I'm not sure how much longer it makes sense to hold off: I'm currently thinking I'll commit those two after beta4 wraps. The last of those is the 5-key syscaches patch, which only makes sense if knngist needs it, so it may get bumped to the next CF, as knngist was not submitted in time for this CF. The other 4 patches were either submitted or reviewed by Simon Riggs or Itagaki Takahiro, and I am presuming they will commit them themselves unless I hear otherwise (in which case I'm happy to pick them up). That leaves just one patch that's actually been reviewed and is ready to be picked up by a committer, so we actually have a bit of a pipelines stall here. > 18 patches have reviews due within four days or less This is a very big number... I hope some of these reviews start to come in soon. I think this is where our bottleneck is at present. > Although we've had some discussion around Markus Wanner's WIP > refactoring patches and the prerequisite miscellaneous patches, > there's nobody down as a Reviewer for any of them. �I understand > that the six WIP patches are there for feedback, not with > expectation of a commit in this CF, but I'm less clear about the two > prerequisite patches. It seems to me that the discussion is Alvaro and I are having with Markus is tilted toward having Markus rewrite the imessages interface to use an SLRU, in which case neither of them will go in this CF. I'm hopeful that Heikki or Tom will comment on this also when they get back from their vacations. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: "Kevin Grittner" on 22 Jul 2010 15:26 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 18 patches have reviews due within four days or less > > This is a very big number... I hope some of these reviews start to > come in soon. I think this is where our bottleneck is at present. Based on off-list emails, I expect most of these to clear by this weekend. Part of this was caused by people "reserving" several patches up front, and posting reviews on some but just now getting to others; part has been caused by people traveling, and not being at "home base" to work on things; part has been due to high priority non-PostgreSQL issues taking people away from reviewing for a few days; and the predicate locking/serializable patch is just too big to review in a few days and I didn't bother taking it out of the count. You'd probably feel better about things if you had read all the off-list emails. Not that we couldn't use another reviewer or two. I'm still welcoming volunteers! -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Markus Wanner on 23 Jul 2010 11:22 Hi, On 07/22/2010 08:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > It seems to me that the discussion is Alvaro and I are having with > Markus is tilted toward having Markus rewrite the imessages interface > to use an SLRU, in which case neither of them will go in this CF. I'm > hopeful that Heikki or Tom will comment on this also when they get > back from their vacations. Just for the record: I don't currently think a rewrite to use SLRU makes any sense for imessages. But to answer Kevin's question: I don't expect to have the prerequisite patches committed this CF, as I don't think it currently makes any sense for Postgres to apply them. Nor did I feel there's general consensus that having we want to have a dynamic memory allocator (for shared memory). It would be nice to be able to keep track of these kind of patches, which are available to Postgres and get maintained, but aren't currently needed or wanted. But do we want to use the CF application for that? How do you prefer to proceed with these patches? It's also worth noting that Simon requested more and better documentation. But I simply can't promise to write anything soon. Regards Markus Wanner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
|
Pages: 1 Prev: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2010-07 week one progress report Next: security label support, part.2 |