Greetings, * Ashutosh Bapat (ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com) wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: > >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 07:16:33PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >>> There were some discussions about renaming the existing 2018-09 entry > >>> versus inserting a new one at -07 and requiring patches to be moved back > >>> explicitly. > > > >> I would do that to reduce unnecessary log noise, but I was unsure of the > >> actual status we are at. I am pretty sure that nobody is going to > >> complain if what they submitted gets looked up two months earlier than > >> what was previously planned, so I would vote to rename the existing > >> 2018-09 to 2018-07, to rename the existing 2018-11 to 2018-09, and to > >> create three new CF entries. > > > > +1 for just renaming 2018-09 to 2018-07, if we can do that. We'll end > > up postponing some entries back to -09, but that seems like less churn > > than the other way. > > Notes at [1] about keeping this commitfest for small patches. Just > renaming the commitfest would mean all the patches, big and small, can > be reviewed and committed.
"Yes and no." While there were concerns raised that larger patches committed earlier might cause back-patching issues, the general consensus from my read of it was that it wasn't likely to be that big of an issue. While I suspect we'll still generally focus on getting smaller changes in during the 2018-07 cycle, to try and "clear the way" for the larger patches, I'm no longer concerned about larger patches which are ready being committed during that cycle. As such, I'm also +1 on the proposal to rename 2018-09 to 2018-07, and make the other renames and add a new one to the end. > [1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon_2018_Developer_Meeting Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature