| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Releasing in September |
| Date: | 2016-01-20 17:22:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20160120172206.GD26711@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-01-20 12:18:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not really sure why we've allowed CFs to drift on, though. Can't we
> just arbitrarily decree them closed on the last day of the month? And
> push unfinished work to the next one? Admittedly, this probably doesn't
> work for the last CF of a release cycle, but that one's always been a
> special case.
I think the problem there is the assumption that each CF entry deserves
some amount of feedback. It's not a big problem to close entries of
patches that have gotten a fair amount, but it's pretty common to have a
set of entries that have barely gotten any review. Usually either
because they're perceived as too boring (fair enough), because they're
too complex for the majority of non-busy people (uhhh), or because
they're seen as claimed.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-01-20 17:22:16 | Re: Releasing in September |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-01-20 17:21:59 | Re: Releasing in September |