Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> 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.
Mumble. That's *part* of the purpose of a CF, but not all. It's also
meant to be a time when people concentrate on reviewing patches, and
surely discussions about syntax or whatever have to be part of that.
I recall in fact that at the last developer meeting, there was
discussion about trying to get people to do more formal reviewing of
design ideas that hadn't even made it to the submittable-patch stage.
So I feel it's counterproductive to try to narrow the concept of a CF
to "only ready to commit" patches.
But having said that, maybe the last CF of a cycle has to be treated
more nearly as you suggest. Certainly if we hold off ending the CF
in hopes of committing stuff that wasn't nearly ready to commit at
its beginning, then we're back to bad old habits that seldom lead
to anything but a late release.
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
