On 2013-09-15 17:03:10 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On 2013-09-15 16:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >On Sun, 2013-09-15 at 16:09 +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > >>My understanding is that a Commit Fest is mainly about Reviewing, that's > >>why I still added an entry for two designs that I need feedback on > >>before actually coding a solution. > >> > >>Writing the code is the easiest part of those proposals, but that's only > >>true as soon as we decide what code we should be writing. > > > >I understand why using the commit fest process is attractive for this, > >because it enables you to force the issue. But the point of the commit > >fest is to highlight patches whose discussion has mostly concluded and > >get them committed. If we add general discussion to the commit fest, > >it'll just become a mirror of the mailing list, and then we'll need yet > >another level of process to isolate the ready patches from that. > > I have one item like this in the current commit fest. I wrote a PoC patch, > but that's just a bad excuse to get around the issue that we don't really > want just RFCs on there. > > The problem is when you post an idea requesting comments on -HACKERS, and > nobody or only one person answers despite efforts to try and keep the > discussion alive and/or revive it. What should one do in that case?
Adding it to the CF in that case seeems like a acceptable emergency measure in the case that nobody has replied to a proposal in a couple of days. But afaics, that's not the case with the patches that Peter is complaining about. This issue certainly hasn't had a lack of comments and the archive proposal is completely new, so I see where Peter is coming from and I tend to agree. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers