Re: Large Commitfest items

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Craig Ringer
Тема Re: Large Commitfest items
Дата
Msg-id CAMsr+YGeWm_tBU8PgywscBJPrLWd2u79mX2=caUXgWjmuFdOLQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Large Commitfest items  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: Large Commitfest items  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 2 July 2018 at 02:50, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Hi,

On 2018-07-01 14:46:47 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> There has been some discussion around excluding large items from the
> current commitfest, for several reasons. However I don't recall ever
> seeing a definition of a large item. It seems to be a bit like "I know
> it when I see it."   I've been looking at the current commitfest
> entries. Based on that I suggest a heuristic that says a commitfest
> item with patches greater than 5000 lines is large.

FWIW, I personally think the criteria should rather be "old" or "very
small". I.e. for patches that have waited for review being large
shouldn't necessarily be an impediment for getting worked on (depending
on invasiveness maybe not committed), and very small for newer things
should be way below 5kloc.


I agree. I think the idea is to stop people (um, totally not guilty of this) from dropping big or intrusive patches in late CFs. 

A 10 line patch can be massively intrusive and contentious. A 5000 line patch can be a mechanical change that nobody disagrees with, or a mature patch that just needed a few tweaks and missed commit in the last CF.

If a line limit is used, we'll get people optimising for the line limit. I don't think that's a win.

This benefits from being fuzzy IMO.

--
 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Synchronous replay take III
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Bulk Insert into PostgreSQL