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

Re: damage control mode

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: damage control mode
Date: 2010-01-08 09:02:23
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> If we *must* have SR and it's not in by the 15th, let's do another
> Commitfest rather than jack the people who played by the rules.

If we do add another Commitfest what we do is exactly jacking people who
played by the rules. Because all those patches that are already part of
alpha3 have been worked on by people expecting a 4 CF development cycle,
and adjusted their agenda, and want a mid-year release.

Now, I'll second Greg Smith and Tom here, in that I think we need to run
the last commitfest as usual, knowing that the outcome of the commitfest
for any given patch is not "it made it" but "we reviewed it". It's still
right for the project to bump a patch on resources ground rather than on
technical merit, at the end of the commitfest.

Why we can do it this way is because we're not starving on
reviewers. We're starving on commiters time. And seeing this:

  Status Summary. Needs Review: 19, Waiting on Author: 5, Ready for
  Committer: 2, Committed: 9, Returned with Feedback: 4. Total: 39.

I don't see any reason not to consider all the 24 patches requiring our


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-01-08 09:03:19
Subject: Re: Add .gitignore files to CVS?
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-01-08 08:55:20
Subject: Re: ACK from walreceiver to walsender

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group