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.

+1.

> 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.


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

• Re: damage control mode at 2010-01-08 09:02:23 from Dimitri Fontaine

Responses

• Re: damage control mode at 2010-01-08 09:25:25 from Dimitri Fontaine

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