On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:02, Dimitri Fontaine <dfonta...@hi-media.com> wrote: > David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes: >> If we *must* have SR and it's not in by the 15th, let's do another >> Commitfest rather than jack the people who played by the rules. > > If we do add another Commitfest what we do is exactly jacking people who > played by the rules. Because all those patches that are already part of > alpha3 have been worked on by people expecting a 4 CF development cycle, > and adjusted their agenda, and want a mid-year release. > > Now, I'll second Greg Smith and Tom here, in that I think we need to run > the last commitfest as usual, knowing that the outcome of the commitfest > for any given patch is not "it made it" but "we reviewed it". It's still > right for the project to bump a patch on resources ground rather than on > technical merit, at the end of the commitfest.
+1. > Why we can do it this way is because we're not starving on > reviewers. We're starving on commiters time. And seeing this: Well, we're actually somewhat starving on senior reviewers as well. That can take on things like the index patches, Writable CTE or SR. We're not starving on reviewers for small-to-medium patches. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
