Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> Surely that there is an emerging consensus to that effect means that it's > >> not as unfortunate as it might be? I seem to recall the original > >> announcement suggesting this was an experiment. I wouldn't expect the > >> first > >> couple rounds to go without a hitch; as long as there is procedural > >> improvement the next time, that's a good thing, right? > >> > > > > Yeah, we expected to have glitches. I think we now have a much better > > idea what sort of status-tracking support we need for future fests. > > > > > > > > Yes. I'm not meaning to whine, sorry if it comes over like that. It > looks to me like we need a sort of prep phase for a commit-fest, so the > people switching into commit-fest mode when it starts can do so with > little friction.
Yea, I think we are still learning, and polishing our tools. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
