On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On tor, 2010-01-21 at 17:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> But let me ask this. For which >> release were you hoping to make this change? If 9.0, then it seems to >> me that you've missed the deadline, which - according to my >> understanding of the agreed-upon schedule - was six days ago. > > By that logic, the next release must be called 8.5, because the deadline > for proposing changes was six days ago.
Well, I was assuming we were talking about feature freeze rather than "no one can ever commit anything", or we'd never get to a release, which is the point of this exercise AIUI. >> Or perhaps you feel that that deadline should only apply to >> non-committers? If so, we should be clear about that, because I have >> a few things which I would have liked to submit but was unable to get >> done before the start of the CommmitFest. I would be more than happy >> to finish them up and propose them now, but my understanding is that >> I'm not supposed to do that. > > My understanding is that the commit fest process is an offer or perhaps > even a promise to patch submitters that their stuff will be attended to > within 2 or 3 months, instead of the 10 months or infinity that might > have been the previous average. And in order to make that "attending" > happen, the development participants are encouraged to focus on > reviewing the submitted patches. Right. I agree. > But I don't think that should mean everyone has to drop everything when > the clock strikes midnight and must now only look at things that the > magic commitfest page has pre-approved. Nobody does that anyway. It I don't believe that something being on the CommitFest page implies any sort of approval. It just expresses the desire of the submitter for it to be reviewed. > just means what you submit now does not get the same "promise" of > attention. Of course if you start proposing new significant features > now then it might be obvious that the discussion and review process > cannot possibly be concluded by the time the release is scheduled, so > you might as well not bother. But if things have been discussed before > or are simple enough and you just didn't get the thing done in time, why > not finish it up. I don't think anyone could accuse you of neglecting > the CF, as you are known to do your share. So I personally encourage > you to try to finish what you have started. If no one wants to review > it and you don't want to take responsibility yourself, well then. And Well, that does seem to be endorsing a sort of two-tiered system. If I submit a patch and nobody looks at it, I can decide that silence means approval and commit it. If someone who is not a committer does the same thing, it dies, no matter how technically excellent it is. I am no longer in a position to be bothered by that, but I think if I were not a committer I might be. I wonder what others think about this. There's another issue, too. If a committer submits a patch, everybody else who cares about the issue has to drop what they're doing and look at it. Because if they don't, there's a good chance that in 24 hours plus or minus, it'll be in the tree. Several patches have blown by me in the last month or two - already committed before I got around to reading them, and I might have had an opinion on them, but it's too late to do anything about it now. I mean, it's not, really: I could still ask for something to be changed, but it's an uphill battle at this point. > if someone proposes something that might be as simple as the MySQL > compatibility thing, assuming a consensus, why not include it, instead > of bumping it to 2012-Next for the sake of the process. I agree to a certain extent, but if you are concerned about our release cycle being too long, as indicated by your use of the name 2012-Next, proposing a whole series of changes for changes during the last CommitFest may not be the best way to get there. Maybe they're small enough that it doesn't matter much, but I still think it would have been easier to deal with two weeks ago when we had a lot less going on. Anyway, I just work here. It's certainly not the end of the world... and there are certainly other things which are going to delay the release by a lot more than this will. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
