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:
Status Summary. Needs Review: 19, Waiting on Author: 5, Ready for
Committer: 2, Committed: 9, Returned with Feedback: 4. Total: 39.
I don't see any reason not to consider all the 24 patches requiring our
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-01-08 09:03:19|
|Subject: Re: Add .gitignore files to CVS?|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-01-08 08:55:20|
|Subject: Re: ACK from walreceiver to walsender|