On 1/16/12 11:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> But, I've noticed that nothing good comes of me pressing my own view
> too hard. Either we as a community value having the CommitFest wrap
> up in a reasonable period of time, or we don't.
Reality is, alas, not nearly so binary as this, and therin lie the delays.
While almost everyone agrees that ending the Commitfests on time is a
good thing, almost everyone has at least one patch they would extend the
CF in order to get done. This is the fundamental scheduling struggle of
every single software project I've ever worked on, so I don't see why we
would expect it to be different on PostgreSQL just because we adopted
the CF model.
The benefit of the CF process is that it makes it *visible* when we're
getting behind. But it doesn't stop us from doing so.
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: YAMAMOTO Takashi||Date: 2012-01-16 21:43:35|
|Subject: Re: VACUUM in SP-GiST|
|Previous:||From: Jeff Janes||Date: 2012-01-16 21:37:59|
|Subject: Re: automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)|