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 What we have is a bunch of outdated and contradictory wiki pages.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 -
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 -
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @ascherbaum and
All that being said, it might be worthwhile to find ways to accelerate doc contributions vs code.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I agree that we need to be better at that - but I'll note that a substantial portion of suggested doc changes are anywhere from outright to subtly wrong - often only caught by other senior contributors cross checking them when proposed to be committed by a committer.
-
-
Replying to @AndresFreundTec @Xof and
Yeah I’ve mostly stopped following pgsql-docs because the signal ratio is so low. Not sure encouraging more drive-by contributions is top priority.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.