On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> I thought it was a useful idea anyway, but I could see his point. This >> should probably move to "Waiting on Author" when it happens, presuming >> that the person who wrote something is motivated to see the change >> committed. (If they weren't, why did they write it?) > > Except that the implication of "waiting on author" is that, if there's > no updates in a couple weeks, we bounce it. And the author doesn't > necessarily control a bikeshedding discussion about syntax, for example.
That's true. I think, though, that the basic problem is that we've lost track of the ostensible purpose of a CommitFest, which is to commit the patches that *are already ready* for commit. Very little of the recently-committed stuff was ready to commit on January 15th, or even close to it, and the percentage of what's left that falls into that category is probably dropping steadily. At this point, if there's not a consensus on it, the correct status is "Returned with Feedback". Specifically, the feedback that we're not going to commit it this CommitFest because we don't have consensus on it yet. If we want to reopen development on 9.3 for another six months and have a few more CommitFests, fine, we can decide to do that. But if we're NOT going to do that, then what we should be focusing our attention at this point is looking at the things that haven't been looked at yet that might be ready to go in - NOT bikeshedding on the things that clearly aren't ready to go in but maybe with enough work could be made so. -- 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
