Re: branching for 9.2devel

> I think the main thing we have to think about before choosing is
> whether
> we believe that we can shorten the CFs at all. Josh's proposal had
> 3-week CFs after the first one, which makes it a lot easier to have a
> fest in November or December, but only if you really can end it on
> time.

I think that 3 weeks is doable. Generally by the last week of all of the CF except for the last one, we're largely waiting on either (a) authors who are slow to respond, (b) patches which are really hard to review, or (c) arguing out spec stuff on -hackers. Generally the last week only has 1-3 patches open, and any of these things could be grounds for booting to the next CF anyway or working on the patches outside the CF. For really hard patches (like Synch Rep) those things don't fit into the CF cycle anyway.

I'm not convinced that shorter than 3 weeks is doable, at least not without changing to a model of binary accept-or-reject. Communications speeds are too slow and reviewer's availability is too random.

> In addition to the fun of working around the holiday season, perhaps
> we should also consider how much work we're likely to get out of
> people
> in the summer. Is it going to be useful to schedule a fest in either
> July or August? Will one month be better than the other?

Doesn't make a difference, both are equally bad. However, if we're short on European reviewers, at least we'll be able to punt European patches immediately because the authors won't be answering their e-mail.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
San Francisco