On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 7:40 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:31 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > To my mind, the point of the time-boxed commitfests is to provide > > a structure wherein people will (hopefully) pay some actual attention > > to other peoples' patches. Conversely, the fact that we don't have > > one running all the time gives committers some defined intervals > > where they can work on their own stuff without feeling guilty that > > they're not handling other people's patches. > > > > If we go back to the old its-development-mode-all-the-time approach, > > what is likely to happen is that the commit rate for not-your-own- > > patches goes to zero, because it's always possible to rationalize > > your own stuff as being more important. > > We already have gone back to that model. We just haven't admitted it > yet.
I've worked on teams that used the short-timebox CF calendar to organize community work, like Tom describes. That was a really positive thing for us. Maybe it feels different from the committer point of view, but I don't think all of the community is operating on the long-timebox model, and I really wouldn't want to see us lengthen the cycles to try to get around the lack of review/organization that's being complained about. (But maybe you're not arguing for that in the first place.) --Jacob