Re: Commit fest 2017-11
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Commit fest 2017-11 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEw5KjpP=yNqDW2-MhLEq+rjc2LKAUGGb4Eq9ciLLMfAkw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Commit fest 2017-11 (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Commit fest 2017-11
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:19 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> I wonder if we should consider adding a field to the CF app *specifically*
> to track things like this. What I'm thinking is a field that's set (or at
> least verified) by the person who flags a patch as committed with choices
> like Trivial/Simple/Medium/Complex (trivial being things like typo fixes
> etc, which today can hugely skew the stats).
I think this would be pretty subjective ... and there are also a LOT
of patches that don't go through the CF process. The ratio of commits
to commitfest entries is at least 5:1. If we only track what gets
registered in the CF app we're ignoring a huge amount of stuff.
Definitely. It's easier to add structured data there than in the commit message though -- but we could also define a standard to add it to the commit messages. Or some inbetween. But whichever way we do it, it's likely going to lead to a non-trivial amount of work to maintain. So the big question is, is the data we can get out of it worth it?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: