Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U3trD-0001Zu-3Z for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:43:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U3trC-0002tW-5G for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:43:34 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([87.238.57.229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U3trB-0002tR-8L for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:43:33 +0000 Received: from la-in-x022b.1e100.net ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b] helo=mail-la0-x22b.google.com) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U3tr7-00057G-82 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:43:31 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id ek20so4159496lab.16 for ; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:43:26 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=2lCL9vOmBVpzDx3cbcK4VxziJW8yC8ibO1VFkDqdCQo=; b=YWh6tvtec2N5F9NkZO2hQc6WAik2WVzqg/rEND6N3+L0IrPH+e0bKu664qwXFXwidr m6qz2aeT11fRQZaUH7cv1p5cWL4wD++Gn28IaPg4lJe/AJKp/RtS+7gFZg93HUx3SHBJ +fiIp0vp5NYo6ioS+FAV3gG+nlUwwvZ3gkHdrehSTuwZ/+xDGjwIl55N+OneZPu4zk6u 2BhEmJ8MhclkDatDTTREO433Lag6+kTbrB72SXtam+nz08YrsISUX/N72IgiAC6dbtE2 L9SUxmTo4nLU/qglZZ/l5Mp/fZwTrdv++zCwZpVuW8sqDL25L6vOJhlVHAuowJO6faON EEyg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.127.202 with SMTP id ni10mr5990363lab.6.1360352606427; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:43:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.151.97 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 11:43:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <511517C7.6070306@gmx.net> References: <5112C602.3090109@agliodbs.com> <14838.1360187606@sss.pgh.pa.us> <5112E08C.9040705@commandprompt.com> <511447A4.3070700@agliodbs.com> <511517C7.6070306@gmx.net> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 14:43:26 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Considering Gerrit for CFs From: Phil Sorber To: Peter Eisentraut Cc: Magnus Hagander , Josh Berkus , Daniel Farina , "Joshua D. Drake" , Tom Lane , PostgreSQL-development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm/Jj6krYT/e3i8uwqXtlUwGeZcPDeMViEeNgiwvBJwcyezj1YiP+ipirwmvf6vGhi14y4O X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2/8/13 5:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> But do you have any actual proof that the problem is in "we >> loose reviewers because we're relying on email"? > > Here is one: Me. > > Just yesterday I downloaded a piece of software that was previously > unknown to me from GitHub and found a bug. Within 15 minutes or so I > had fixed the bug, made a fork, sent a pull request. Today I read, the > fix was merged last night, and I'm happy. > > How would this go with PostgreSQL? You can use the bug form on the web > site, but you can't attach any code, so the bug will just linger and > ultimately put more burden on a core contributor to deal with the > minutiae of developing, testing, and committing a trivial fix and > sending feedback to the submitter. Or the user could take the high road > and develop and patch and submit it. Just make sure it's in context > diff format! Search the wiki if you don't know how to do that! Send it > to -hackers, your email will be held for moderation. We won't actually > do anything with your patch, but we will tell you to add it to that > commitfest app over there. You need to sign up for an account to use > that. We will deal with your patch in one or two months. But only if > you review another patch. And you should sign up for that other mailing > list, to make sure you're doing it right. Chances are, the first review > you're going to get is that your patch doesn't apply anymore, but which > time you will have lost interest in the patch anyway. This. This times 1000. > > So, I don't have any further evidence that we are losing reviewers, but > in light of the above and the options out there were interested > developers can contribute much more easily, I'm amazed that we are > getting any new contributors or reviewers at all. > > Of course, Gerrit doesn't actually address most of the issues above, but > it could be part of a step forward. > I'm not sure if Gerrit specifically is the answer, but there are definitely better ways to do code review like this. I really like the way github allows you to post a patch and then have conversation around it, offer comments on specific lines of code, and add updates to the patch all in one interface. Another benefit is that a lot more people are familiar and comfortable with this work flow. There are even some open source work-a-likes that we could use to we don't have to rely on a 3rd party like github. Gerrit seems to do it slightly differently with side by side diff's and patch revisions, but either way would be an improvement. I understand there are other concerns in this thread, like email, etc. I don't have a comprehensive plan that solves all this, but I wanted to add my +1 to the idea of something more sophisticated when it comes to code review. > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers