> Huh? We've never guaranteed anyone a regular annual cycle, and we've > never had one. We agreed to use the same schedule for 9.1 as for 9.0; > I don't remember anything more than that being discussed anywhere, > ever.
We *want* to have a regular annual cycle which doesn't vary by more than a few weeks. This benefits people who have to schedule work with their boss, or upgrades with their IT department. The fact that we haven't achieved one yet is a flaw, not an argument. >> I do think that we could bump the first CF up to July 1st, but I don't >> think sooner than that is realistic without harming beta testing ... and >> potentially delaying the release. Let's first demonstrate a track >> record in getting a final release out consistently by July, and if that >> works, maybe we can bump up the date. > > I have no idea where you're coming up with this estimate. I don't know what estimate you're talking about. Reference? > So I'm really rather suspicious that you know > what's wrong with the process and how to fix it better than the people > who are involved currently. I think we need here is more input from > the people who are regularly submitting and reviewing patches, and > those who have tried recently but been turned off by some aspect of > the process. I don't think the process *is* broken in any major way. It's just a question of whether we could improve things further, and make the CF process less annoying for some of the participants. Tom just suggested that we could do better in week-a-month mode, and I was thinking about ways to make that work, since it sounded attractive to me. You'll also notice that I volunteered to run the first few CFs if we decide to try it. In other words, it wasn't my idea originally, and a few committers supported it before I said anything, so ad hominem criticism isn't a very good way to argue. You need to stop "going for the jugular" whenever you disagree with people ;-) Certainly the relevant decision is whether you, Tom, Heikki, Peter, Kevin, Andrew, Jeff, Bruce, etc. think that a different time cycle will improve things, since you are currently the ones paying the biggest costs of any lack of optimization of the current system. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers