On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> done in the time available is another thing entirely. I do NOT want >> to still be working on the items for this CommitFest in June - that's >> about when I'd like to be releasing beta3. > > Except that's not how we work here. You want to change that with > respect to the release management process and schedule (or lack > thereof). Tradition and current practice say you need to reach > consensus to be able to bypass compromising. > > Good luck with that.
I'm not trying to bypass compromising, and I don't know what makes you think otherwise. I am trying to ensure that the CommitFest wraps up in a timely fashion, which is something we have done consistently for every CommitFest in the 9.0 and 9.1 cycles to date, including the last CommitFest of the 9.0 cycle. It is not somehow a deviation from past community practice to boot patches that can't be finished up in the time available during the CommitFest. That has been routine practice for a long time. I have worked very hard on this CommitFest, both to line up patch reviewers and to review myself. I want to make sure that every patch gets a good, thorough review before the CommitFest is over. I think there is general consensus that this is important and that we will lose contributors if we don't do it. However, I don't want to prolong the CommitFest indefinitely in the face of patches that the authors are not actively working on or can't finish in the time available, or where there is no consensus that the proposed change is what we want. I believe that this, too, is a generally accepted principle in our community, not something I just made up. -- 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
