Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I have always
> felt that the purpose of a CommitFest was to give everyone a fair
> shake at getting their patch reviewed, provided that they followed
> certain ground rules.
Yes, like for example submitting the patch before the commit fest
> And I thought we had agreement that one of
> those ground rules was "don't submit new, large patches to the final
> CommitFest in a particular release cycle". No?
I don't remember this having been agreed upon. What I think have been
said before is that doing so would not help stabilizing the tree before
You seem to be wanting to put a lot of energy into being successful at
following the current release schedule, which others seem to be seeing
as an hint or a wish more than anything else (it's the expected one, not
the one we're committed to, I'd venture).
Is it more important to follow the calendar or to be unable to know with
a month precision when we're going to release the best possible 8.5?
Again, it's a compromise to find. You're pushing towards the calendar,
we're advocating staying fair (opened?) with contributors even when it
means we're taking risks on the schedule.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-01-09 13:46:20|
|Subject: Re: damage control mode|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-01-09 11:47:00|
|Subject: Re: Add .gitignore files to CVS?|