On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 14:25 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > The patch is a million little decisions: names, catalog structure,
> > interface, representation, general usability, grammar, functionality,
> > etc. Without some checkpoint, the chances that everyone agrees with all
> > of these decisions at the beginning of the next commitfest is zero.
> >
> > Is the commitfest not the right place to do this? If not, then when?
>
> That's a fair question, and I do understand the difficulty. I think a
> CommitFest is the right place to do that. On the other hand, as I'm
> sure you realize, I'm not keen to hold up 9.1beta for a feature that
> isn't going to be committed until 9.2.
I'm not asking you to hold it up. Just don't mark it "returned with
feedback" when that is not true, and a week still remains. Erik is still
looking at it, and that might generate some interesting discussion.
> ...everyone who has been thinking about doing something for the release
> wakes up and submits it, often half-finished, often at the very last
> minute.
On the flip side, if we don't provide review to WIP patches during the
3rd commitfest, how do we expect to get anything close to committable on
the 1st commitfest of the next cycle?
> Although it doesn't
> feel like it at the moment, we have actually made great strides in
> absorbing large patches.
I agree completely.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
