On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:27:13PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > When I came up with the idea of CommitFests they were supposed to be an > incremental improvement for us to build on. Instead it's remained > frozen in amber, and steadily becoming less and less effective. I've > suggested a number of improvements and changes over the years, and > largely been rewarded with denial, attacks, ridicule, and general > sandbaggery. I'm done. If the community doesn't think there's a > problem, then clearly I'm in error for proposing fixes. > > Not sure who you're going to get to do CF3, though. I'm not going to be > CFM again, and I'm pretty sure nobody else wants the job either.
For what it's worth, I liked how you ran CF 2013-06. It proceeded better than any CF of the 9.3 development cycle. I can appreciate that it drained you, though; you tried new things, and your reward was lots of flak. Your innovations were 85% good; sadly, debate raged over the negative aspects only. Perhaps that arises from how we deal with code. An 85%-good patch can still wreak havoc in the field; closing that gap is essential. We say little about the correct aspects of a patch; it's usually a given that things not mentioned are satisfactory and have self-evident value. That's not such an effective discussion pattern when the topic is management strategies. Thanks, nm -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers