Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > I realize there is the perception that the large patches that were > eventually rejected held up the release, but for all the patches I > can think of, they were not rejected immediately _because_ we had > other valid patches to work on. Once all valid patches were > applied, we were quickly able to reject the large unready patches. > > So, rejecting the large patches earily would not have significantly > moved the release date earlier. Like Robert, I'm extremely skeptical of this claim, for the same reasons. However, even the *possibility* that this could be true is pretty scary. If we need to effectively shut down new development for seven months at the end of a release, in addition to the interim commit fests, we'd better get a handle on why, so that can change. To what do you attribute the extended time needed to handle the final CF? How can that be made better? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
