Re: scary patch contest

On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 12:00:20AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 at 04:48, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't currently have a firm position on what we should do here. I
>> think it's pretty clear that none of these were as robust at commit
>> time as we would like, but that doesn't mean that they're still
>> broken.
>
> I don't envy the job of the RMT having to make these choices, but IMO
> part of the controls for where to set the bar for the trigger point
> for a revert should include the amount of available quality review and
> discussion bandwidth that's available at the time when the bug is
> discovered. It's easy for people removed from the problem to sit at
> home and demand that everything gets done, but when cycles are
> limited, something must be sacrificed. Sometimes that's free time, but
> it's hard not to let quality slip when under stress and pressure.
>
> I don't have anything to quantify it for the community as a whole, but
> at least for me, I don't think I've ever had fewer free cycles. I
> suspect that's the case for many of us. So I don't think that it's
> unreasonable to set the revert bar a bit lower this year.

FWIW I'm going to be bringing the list in this thread plus a couple of
other items to the RMT meeting today, and I am planning to push for us to
start making hard decisions. We've been trying to let the community
process play out as much as possible, but at this point we're just about
out of runway and need to get v19 ready.

--
nathan