Re: 9.2 commitfest closure (was Command Triggers, v16)

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> 2. I'm not sure which patches Tom is planning to look at or in what
>>> order, so I've been avoiding the ones he seems to be taking an
>>> interest in.

>> Well, I think I'm definitely on the hook for the pg_stat_statements,
>> pgsql_fdw, foreign table stats, and caching-stable-subexpressions
>> patches, and I should look at the libpq alternate row returning
>> mechanism because I suspect I was the last one to mess with that libpq
>> code in any detail.

> How long will that all take?

Dunno, but surely at least a day apiece if they're to be pushed to
commit. On the other hand, considering that none of them is actually
Ready For Committer right now, we possibly shouldn't expect that they'll
all get committed.

>>> Personally, I am about at the point where I'd like to punt everything
>>> and move on. As nice as it would be to squeeze a few more things into
>>> 9.2, there WILL be a 9.3. If a few less people had submitted
>>> half-baked code at the last minute and a few more people had helped
>>> with review, we'd be done by now.

>> The main reason I proposed setting a schedule a few weeks ago was that
>> I was afraid the commitfest would otherwise end precisely in a "we're
>> tired out, we're punting everything to 9.3" moment. Without some
>> definite goal to work towards, it'll just keep stretching out until
>> we've had enough. I'd prefer it end in a more orderly fashion than
>> that. The end result will be the same, in the sense that some of the
>> stuff that's still-not-ready-for-committer is going to get punted,
>> but people might have a less bad taste in their mouths about why.

> Fine. What do you propose, specifically?

The end of the month is coming up. How about we propose to close the
'fest on April 1st? Anything that's not committable by then goes to
the 9.3 list. If one week seems too short, how about 2 weeks?

Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
> This is probably a dumb question but... surely there's more than 2
> committers able to review?

Able and willing might be two different things. Alvaro, Heikki, and
Magnus have all been looking at stuff, but I think they may be getting
burned out too.

regards, tom lane