Kevin Grittner wrote: > 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?
We had many patches that had been through previous commit-fests with minor adjustments and we had to finalize them before we could close the final commit-fest. To be clear I am talking about patches that were eventually applied in 8.4, not patches that were rejected for 8.4. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://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
