Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think we used to do it more or less like that, but people
>> didn't like it because they couldn't do any long-range planning.
> Well, obviously the 8.4 release cycle did little to help them.
> As has already been observed, there is a crying need to say "no" at
> some point to get a release out.
> It might actually help to do that on big patches if we don't let too
> many tiny ones accumulate. I seem to remember the argument being tossed
> about that "we might as well keep working on this one because there's
> all these others to wrap up."
Have you chaps considered a simple points system? Every patch would need
five minutes attention to triage it into one of: small (1 point),
medium (2), large (10), huge (50 points - Sync Repl etc). First CF gets
(say) 200 points, next 150, next 100, next 75. First-come, first-served
- if your patch goes over the limit it goes in the next commit-fest.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Nathan Boley||Date: 2009-06-30 19:39:48|
|Subject: Re: Multi-Dimensional Histograms|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-06-30 19:10:40|
|Subject: Re: 8.5 development schedule |