On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:02, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>> If we *must* have SR and it's not in by the 15th, let's do another
>> Commitfest rather than jack the people who played by the rules.
> If we do add another Commitfest what we do is exactly jacking people who
> played by the rules. Because all those patches that are already part of
> alpha3 have been worked on by people expecting a 4 CF development cycle,
> and adjusted their agenda, and want a mid-year release.
> Now, I'll second Greg Smith and Tom here, in that I think we need to run
> the last commitfest as usual, knowing that the outcome of the commitfest
> for any given patch is not "it made it" but "we reviewed it". It's still
> right for the project to bump a patch on resources ground rather than on
> technical merit, at the end of the commitfest.
> Why we can do it this way is because we're not starving on
> reviewers. We're starving on commiters time. And seeing this:
Well, we're actually somewhat starving on senior reviewers as well.
That can take on things like the index patches, Writable CTE or SR.
We're not starving on reviewers for small-to-medium patches.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Michael Meskes||Date: 2010-01-08 09:06:05|
|Subject: pgsql: Also update ChangerLog file.|
|Previous:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2010-01-08 09:04:46|
|Subject: Re: ACK from walreceiver to walsender|