From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Schedule and Release Management Team for PG10 |
Date: | 2017-03-29 18:30:49 |
Message-ID: | 20170329183049.GN9812@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, all,
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> My own thought is that there's room for at least a few days' slop in
> the end date of the final commitfest, depending on what patches remain
> open and what the prospects are for getting them done. (In the past
> we've sometimes let the final fest stretch on indefinitely, which is
> clearly the Wrong Thing; but that doesn't mean that the Right Thing is
> to say that it ends at 2017-04-01 00:00 UTC no matter what.) The RMT
> should look at things in another day or two and make a judgment call
> about that.
I tend to agree with this, though I am also of the opinion that it'd
be better to get a date out there earlier rather than later. There's a
number of hackers at PGConf.US who are trying their best to review
patches and keep things moving while also giving talks and being
involved in the conference. There's at least a couple of patches which
I can think of off-hand that I'd like to continue working through the
process to get them committed and only require another day or so of
effort, but finding that time in-between activities at the conference,
while possible, isn't ideal.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-03-29 18:46:31 | Re: Monitoring roles patch |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-03-29 18:17:37 | Re: [PATCH] Reduce src/test/recovery verbosity |