Using something like Gitlab would be my other suggestion as well. If that could show patches as web link, allow submitting updates using git instead mail, and point to the discussion - could be helpful.
-
-
Replying to @ascherbaum @fuzzycz and
I dont think the tool is of any importance, it's the fact that everyone this discussion is intended to reach is already on github and knows exactly how it works and how to contribute.. and like it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @d_gustafsson @ascherbaum and
If that's true, and it well might be, then even considering something like gitlab would be a waste of time (at least until something happens and people start fleeing from github). I doubt we ever want primary dev on a proprietary platform. So? We need two parallel processes.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @magnushagander @d_gustafsson and
Given that we already have an issue with not having enough patch reviewers, I'm a bit concerned that encouraging drive-by patches would make that situation even worse. I'm not 100% sure that "it is too hard to submit my patch to PostgreSQL" is the project's core problem, either.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Xof @d_gustafsson and
Drive by patches generally take very little review time though. As long as it's an acceptable outcome to bounce them, actually reviewing the ones that are complete and mostly ready to go is not that much work.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @magnushagander @Xof and
Yeah. My hope is that at least some of the people might submit a larger patch, and perhaps do some reviews later.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @fuzzycz @magnushagander and
What a new contributor might consider an easy drive-by patch, and what might actually *be* a drive-by patch, are often two different things… and that requires review time to triage. I'm concerned that the current reviewers being buried under well-meaning, low-quality patches.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It's certainly a risk. The flipside of it is that it might *also* help as entry level patches for new *reviewers*. I am certain it's not a silver bullet. I'm far form certain it will work at all. But there is really only one way to find out.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @magnushagander @Xof and
Since moving to Github, we get first-time contributors with drive-bys as well as complicated patches with bugfixes and features in *every* release, on a 2 month cycle
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @d_gustafsson @magnushagander and
I dont particularly advocate GH for postgres, but believing the tool is the problem for getting contributions is false iMHO
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I mean at the very least we should have a http://CONTRIBUTING.md and a bot that redirects PRs to the CF docs. But, then we'd need to actually have useful docs about contributing and the development workflow. What we have is a bunch of outdated and contradictory wiki pages.
-
-
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @d_gustafsson and
I've serious doubts about moving to github or somesuch, but I do believe that there's an actual problem here.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @d_gustafsson and
Moving? I don't think anyone suggests moving everything to GH (I certainly don't want that). It's rather about making small contributions easier for people who are already there. Or do you think that's problematic too? Why?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 15 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.