On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Jan 20, 2016 5:03 PM, "Andres Freund" <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> FWIW, looking at the last few commitfests, aside heroic and > >> unsustainable efforts by individual CF managers, I haven't noticed any > >> effect of when fests started/stopped. Aside from a short time increase > >> in unfinished patches being posted the day before the next CFs starts. > > > Yeah, we seem to be firmly stuck at two month long commitfests started > > every two months. The plan was for them to be one month.. > > > Maybe we should try just very drastically cutting them at one month and > > bumping everything left. No questions asked, no extra time for anybody. > > Regardless of if it's the first or the last commitfest. > > > Just to see what happens. Because what we are doing now clearly doesn't > > work.. > > I do not think commitfest length is the problem (though surely it's not > working as intended). What happened with 9.5 is we forked the 9.6 > I agree that it's not the same problem. I do believe that it is *a* problem though, and a fairly significant one too. Because there's *never* any downtime from CF mode, regardless of where in the cycle we are. While not the same, we need to fix both. We will not get back to on-schedule releases unless we can keep -hackers > working on release testing/stabilization when it's time to do that, > rather than being distracted by shiny new stuff going into the next > release. > Agreed. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
