Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> At any rate, I think your comments are driving at a good point, which
> is that CommitFests are a time for patches that are done or very
> nearly done to get committed, and a time for other patches to get
> reviewed if they haven't been already. If we make it clear that the
> purpose of the CommitFest is to assess whether the patch is
> committable, rather than to provide an open-ended window for it to
> become committable, we might do better.
Yeah, earlier today I tried to draft a reply saying more or less that,
though I couldn't arrive at such a succinct formulation. It's clear
that in this last fest, there was a lot of stuff submitted that was not
ready for commit or close to it. What we should have done with that was
review it, but *not* hold open the fest while it got rewritten.
We've previously discussed ideas like more and shorter commitfests
--- I seem to recall proposals like a week-long fest once a month,
for instance. That got shot down on the argument that it presumed
too much about authors and reviewers being able to sync their schedules
to a narrow review window. But I think that fests lasting more than a
month are definitely not good.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
