On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On 10/21/13 9:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> I am not 100% sure, but what's the point of the CF if we're not actually >> reviewing patches that wouldn't get review without it? So I guess it's >> not starting the next one before we've finished - which we obviously >> haven't in this case - the last one. > > The point is to get people to do some reviewing in the first place. If > people don't want to review certain things or are exhausted after a > month, extending the commitfest is not going to achieve much.
I agree with that, but I agree with Andres, too. CommitFests are supposed to be time-bounded, and they're also supposed to get a certain amount of work done, and they're supposed to do it using all-volunteer labor. Guaranteeing all of those things simultaneously clearly isn't possible; and yet some past CommitFest managers have been far more successful at it than others. I think it's more of an art than a science. -- 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