[hackers-jp: 215] Re: [Fwd: [HACKERS] Patch Submission Guidelines]

[Satoshi Nagayasu]

すいません、最初の2,3行しか読まずに転送したら、
ガイドラインを作ろうって話でしたね。。失礼。。

Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> 永安です。
> 
> パッチ投稿のガイドラインってのが出てましたね。
> いろいろと思い当たる節があるのがアレですが。。
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [HACKERS] Patch Submission Guidelines
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:20:55 +0000
> From: Simon Riggs <simon ＠ 2ndquadrant.com>
> To: pgsql-hackers ＠ postgresql.org
> 
> Many patch submitters discover that they fall foul of various "you
> should have done"s at a late stage of the patch review process.
> These include the usual:
> - major feature change not discussed on -hackers or elsewhere first
> - patch in wrong format
> - performance patch, yet no performance test results to prove benefit
> - no accompanying doc patch
> - won't work on various ports (and it needs to)
> etc..
> 
> In contrast, the documentation and translation process is extremely well
> documented; this may be by design.
> 
> I would like to suggest that we increase substantially the FAQ entries
> relating to patch submission. By we, I actually mean please could the
> committers sit down and agree some clarified written guidelines?
> 
> There is nothing wrong right now with the level of quality of patches
> that get accepted, so I do not wish to discuss lowering or increasing
> the quality bar. What I do want to discuss is how to increase the
> efficiency of the patch submission process so that senior committers
> spend less of their time (our most critical resource) on poor quality
> submissions (however that is judged) and also that patch submitters also
> have fast feedback on missing requirements.
> 
> A clear FAQ entry or checklist can be applied easily by more casual
> readers of the -patches list, allowing errors to be pointed out quickly
> by non-committers and any missing requirements rectified. Written
> guidelines are also much more easily translated than no guidelines at
> all, benefiting non-native English speakers considerably.
> 
> Some of the above guidelines are clearly explained in FAQ, others not. I
> would also want to add to the Developer page of the website something
> along the lines of "Interested in developing for PostgreSQL? Please read
> the <A>patch submission guidelines</A> before you begin work since only
> the highest quality patches will be accepted."
> 
> I believe if we do this we will have more patches produced, reviewed and
> committed from our available resources, as well as more hackers more
> regularly willing to face the challenges of getting a quality patch
> accepted. In the end we will live and die by the number of people
> submitting and how many of those go on to become regular contributors
> (should I say "serial hackers"?)
> 
> Bruce currently maintains much of this material, so I want it to be
> known that this is specifically not a criticism of his work. This is
> just an earnest attempt to increase the efficiency of the current
> process, so patch authors can move quickly onto their next patch.
> 
> [Increasing the quality of my own submissions is a necessary act in this
> process, though I hope these thoughts can be considered outside of my
> own involvement and experience.]
> 
> It's probably also time for the annual discussion about when is the next
> patch submission deadline. ;-)
> 
> Best Regards, Simon Riggs
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
>                http://archives.postgresql.org
> 
> 


-- 
NAGAYASU Satoshi <nagayasus ＠ nttdata.co.jp>