Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>>> ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ...
>>>>
>>>> Really? I thought the idea for the last CF of a development
>>>> cycle was that it kept going till we'd dealt with everything.
>>>> Arbitrarily rejecting stuff we haven't dealt with doesn't seem
>>>> fair.
>>>
>>> Uh, we did that with 8.4 and it was a disaster. The CommitFest
>>> lasted *five months*. We've been doing schedule-based
>>> CommitFests ever since and it's worked much better.
>>
>> Rejecting stuff because we haven't gotten round to dealing with
>> it in such a short period of time is a damn good way to limit the
>> number of contributions we get. I don't believe we've agreed at
>> any point that the last commitfest should be the same time length
>> as the others
>
> News to me.
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.1_Development_Plan
I believe that with tighter management of the process, it should be
possible to reduce the average delay between someone writing a
feature and that feature appearing in a production release by about
two months without compromising quality. Getting hypothetical for a
moment, delaying release of 50 features for two months to allow
release of one feature ten months earlier is likely to frustrate a
lot more people than having the train leave the station on time and
putting that one feature into the next release.
My impression was that Robert is trying to find a way to help get
Simon's patch into this release without holding everything up for
it. In my book, that's not a declaration of war; it's community
spirit.
-Kevin