pete...@gmx.net (Peter Eisentraut) writes: > I suggest going with four commit fests. Three is too short. We already > started the first one early, which didn't give those involved in the > release any time to prepare some patches for it. So with three fests > you'd only give the major developers 8 weeks to code something for a > yearly release.
Partial counter-argument... A large portion of the patches in CommitFest #1 represented items that had been deferred from 8.4. So... a) Many of these patches came in with ~6 months of preparation time b) People were always free to start work earlier than CommitFest #1 c) If something requires a *lot* of work, then it may be that it gets deferred so that it comes in as part of CommitFest #1 for 8.6, with the very same characteristics as in a)... I do agree that trying to force coordination with a specific conference in Ottawa seems like a very peculiar sort of forced scheduling. -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'ca.afilias.info'; Christopher Browne "Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three" -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
