On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-01-20 10:40:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> We have gotten off of that cycle in the last two major releases, and >> this isn't going to improve as long as we have commitfests starting >> after January. > > I think this has very little to do with commitfest schedules, and much > more with the "early" forking of the new version branch. For both 9.4 > and 9.5 we essentially spent a couple months twiddling our thumbs.
It's certainly true that we twiddled our thumbs quite a bit about getting 9.5 ready to ship. However, the old process where nobody could get anything committed for six months out of the year blew chunks, too. Personally, I think that the solution is to cut off the last CommitFest a lot sooner, and then reopen the tree for the next release as soon as possible. But this never works, because there are always patches we want to slip in late. -- 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
