On fre, 2010-01-08 at 21:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > The commitfest is a tool for people to track what is going on, not a
> > tool to tell people what to do.
> I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you please elaborate?
The proposal was apparently that a small, vocal group gets to decide
what features are more important than others, and then change the commit
fest listing to make everyone work on those features instead of some
other ones. My opinion is that the commit fest should list everything
that was submitted and that participants can decide on their own what is
more important to them.
> And I thought we had agreement that one of
> those ground rules was "don't submit new, large patches to the final
> CommitFest in a particular release cycle". No?
I don't agree with that or the way it was assessed in this case.
The reason why I make these points is that if you make the commit fest
too selective, then, since you are not the employer of anyone, people
who don't agree with your choices will just ignore them and do something
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2010-01-09 14:36:42|
|Subject: Re: Add .gitignore files to CVS?|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-01-09 14:19:44|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tidy up and refactor plperl.c.|