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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @d_gustafsson @magnushagander and
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 What we have is a bunch of outdated and contradictory wiki pages.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
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 -
Replying to @fuzzycz @d_gustafsson and
Even if it's just a partial move, it'll split review. And I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll manage to very clearly separate what's allowed to happen in github PRs, and what on the list.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @fuzzycz and
I have to agree. I think that having an expedited review process for small changes (definition TBD) makes sense, but having multiple streams into the codebase would be a major headache.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Xof @AndresFreundTec and
Obviously, it's not without risks. I agree changes that are not obviously correct should be funneled to the list, and committers / reviewers should not be expected to watch GH. If there are volunteers willing to curate the GH queue, why not to give it a try?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Outside of typo-fixes etc there's just about no obviously correct contribution by first timers. It's possible that those would suddenly appear, but I doubt it. And if there's any discussion, how would we guarantee it's archived somewhere under our control?
-
-
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @fuzzycz and
And why are we discouraging even the small drive-by patches by making the process unnecessary complicated for people not familiar with the PostgreSQL development process?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ascherbaum @fuzzycz and
Well, as I previously said. There's very few first comer contributions that actually can just be applied, and the rest requires discussion. And those need to happen somewhere where others have a chance to intervene. Doing that in GH would mandate committers watching it.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 9 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.