| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1 |
| Date: | 2011-02-09 14:42:46 |
| Message-ID: | 11464.1297262566@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 02/09/2011 07:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> The previous three commit fests contained about 50 patches each and
>> lasted one month each. The current commit fest contains about 100
>> patches, so it shouldn't be surprising that it will take about 2 months
>> to get through it.
> Personally I think it's not unreasonable to extend the final commitfest
> of the release some. It doesn't need to be a huge amount longer,
> certainly not five months, but a couple of weeks to a month might be fair.
Yeah. IIRC, in our first cycle using the CF process, we expected the
last CF to take longer than others. I am not sure where the idea came
from that we'd be able to finish this one in a month.
I do accept the fact that we mustn't let it drag on indefinitely.
But two months instead of one isn't indefinite, and it seems more
realistic given the amount of work to be done.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-09 14:47:37 | Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-02-09 14:04:18 | Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1 |