On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ... >>> >>> Really? I thought the idea for the last CF of a development cycle was >>> that it kept going till we'd dealt with everything. Arbitrarily >>> rejecting stuff we haven't dealt with doesn't seem fair. >> >> Uh, we did that with 8.4 and it was a disaster. The CommitFest lasted >> *five months*. We've been doing schedule-based CommitFests ever since >> and it's worked much better. > > Rejecting stuff because we haven't gotten round to dealing with it in > such a short period of time is a damn good way to limit the number of > contributions we get. I don't believe we've agreed at any point that > the last commitfest should be the same time length as the others
News to me. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.1_Development_Plan -- 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
