Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?
Date: 2012-01-16 21:38:15
Message-ID: 4F1498C7.20209@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 1/16/12 11:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> But, I've noticed that nothing good comes of me pressing my own view
> too hard.  Either we as a community value having the CommitFest wrap
> up in a reasonable period of time, or we don't.

Reality is, alas, not nearly so binary as this, and therin lie the delays.

While almost everyone agrees that ending the Commitfests on time is a
good thing, almost everyone has at least one patch they would extend the
CF in order to get done.  This is the fundamental scheduling struggle of
every single software project I've ever worked on, so I don't see why we
would expect it to be different on PostgreSQL just because we adopted
the CF model.

The benefit of the CF process is that it makes it *visible* when we're
getting behind.  But it doesn't stop us from doing so.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: YAMAMOTO TakashiDate: 2012-01-16 21:43:35
Subject: Re: VACUUM in SP-GiST
Previous:From: Jeff JanesDate: 2012-01-16 21:37:59
Subject: Re: automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group