Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

CF Progress or the lack thereof

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>,Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>,Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: CF Progress or the lack thereof
Date: 2013-01-16 12:05:36
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > There are still 34 items needing attention in CF3.  I suggest that, if
> > you have some spare time, your help would be very much appreciated
> > there.  The commitfest that started on Jan 15th has 65 extra items.
> > Anything currently listed in CF3 can rightfully be considered to be part
> > of CF4, too.
> In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of the CF
> process.  Quite aside from the lack of progress on closing CF3, major
> hackers who should know better are submitting significant new feature
> patches now, despite our agreement in Ottawa that nothing big would be
> accepted after CF3.  At this point I'd bet against releasing 9.3 during
> 2013.

To be honest I don't think new patches coming in late are the actual
problem though. If you look at the CF progress in December and January
there have been rather few non-trivial commits of patches that haven't
been authored by committers:
- auto updatable views (Dean via Tom)
- autovacuum truncate lock (Jan via Kevin)
- minimal recovery.conf (Zoltan via Magnus)

I might have missed one or two, but thats about it. There's quite some
smaller patches going through but thats all coming directly from on-list
conversations. I benefit from that, no question, but its still
frustrating for others.

At this point it feels like reviewing doesn't really help all that
much. There's a noticeable amount of patches in "Ready for Committer"
state and while one or two might not have that status rightfully thats
made up by others that are ready but not marked as such.
While I think I put a fair amount of time into reviewing I am happy to
increase that, but if it just means patches are lingering around anyway,
why bother?

Now that sounds a bit like I am blaming committers. I am not. Its their
own time and they all got other stuff they need (but not necessarily
like) to to do and thats absolutely fair.
But we still need a way to at least partially solve this issue.



 Andres Freund	         
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2013-01-16 12:08:27
Subject: Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2013-01-16 11:52:43
Subject: Re: Parallel query execution

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group