On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:55:07AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I think this has very little to do with commitfest schedules, and much > > more with the "early" forking of the new version branch. For both 9.4 > > and 9.5 we essentially spent a couple months twiddling our thumbs. > > It's certainly true that we twiddled our thumbs quite a bit about > getting 9.5 ready to ship. However, the old process where nobody > could get anything committed for six months out of the year blew > chunks, too. Personally, I think that the solution is to cut off the > last CommitFest a lot sooner, and then reopen the tree for the next > release as soon as possible. But this never works, because there are > always patches we want to slip in late.
The bottom line is we can't sustain five commitfests and stay on time --- we need to go back to four, which I think is what we used to do. We twiddled our thumbs back in the September-release years too, but had consistency because twiddling was built into the schedule. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
