On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:02 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > Given how things worked, i.e. that people were not clear that 9.1 > development had actually started, etc., I am again proposing that we > have one more CF starting March 15 to get this all cleaned up. Yes, I > know that wasn't the plan, but I also know that we're really, really > close on a whole bunch of things, some of which have been in the > offing for years at this point, and we risk giving people the > impression, if they don't already have it, that if they're not in the > "inner circle," their patches get lower priority no matter what their > merits.
I agree that we have some problems in that area - particularly with writeable CTEs - but prolonging the schedule isn't going to fix that problem. I don't think that's entirely fair to people who planned their work over the last eight months so that their patches would be committed before the deadline. I both worked hard to make sure the stuff I cared most about got committed in time, and passed over projects that I could not get done in time, even though I *could* have gotten them done given another two months. I realize there are all sorts of good reasons why people didn't get things done on time, like, say, the need to earn a living - but having a time frame and sticking with it is ultimately better for the project, at least in my opinion. If we have to slip the end of the CommitFest a little to get a few extra things in, OK, but adding another two months to the development schedule that's been published for most of a year is a pretty drastic change. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers