> Robert Haas wrote: >> I am assuming that at least Hot Standby and Streaming Replication will >> likely require two CommitFests to go from the point where they are >> seriously reviewable to actual commit.
FWIW, I think that both HS and SR are special cases: if we ever see reviewable patches for them, people will probably be willing to work on them outside the CommitFest framework. We shouldn't be setting the schedule with the idea that those will only be dealt with in CFs. To my mind the CF process is for dealing with "run of the mill" patches. Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > My concern is not just with those features, but with the whole ratio of > the window for new work to the total development cycle. That ratio keeps > going down and the time the tree is effectively frozen to new features > keeps going up. Yup. This is a huge problem and we need to deal with it somehow. At the same time, I'm worried that our beta testing process is already inadequate. We've found several rather embarrassing bugs in 8.4, for instance, things that should have been found in beta IMO. Shortening beta or encouraging people to start next-cycle development instead of testing doesn't seem like a wise move. You can't just develop all the time, you have to test & debug too ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers