On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > But objective rules do not require a just judge, and they have a > different advantage: predictability. If I know that a clock starts ticking > the moment I get my first review, I'll shape my personal plan accordingly. > That works even if I don't favor that timer to govern CFs.
In theory this is true, but previous attempts at enforcing a time-based rule were, as I say, not a complete success. Maybe we just need greater consensus around the rule, whatever it is. At any rate, I think your comments are driving at a good point, which is that CommitFests are a time for patches that are done or very nearly done to get committed, and a time for other patches to get reviewed if they haven't been already. If we make it clear that the purpose of the CommitFest is to assess whether the patch is committable, rather than to provide an open-ended window for it to become committable, we might do better. -- 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
