From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 8.5 development schedule |
Date: | 2009-06-30 19:31:42 |
Message-ID: | 4A4A681E.6050001@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> I think we used to do it more or less like that, but people
>> didn't like it because they couldn't do any long-range planning.
>
> Well, obviously the 8.4 release cycle did little to help them.
>
> As has already been observed, there is a crying need to say "no" at
> some point to get a release out.
>
> It might actually help to do that on big patches if we don't let too
> many tiny ones accumulate. I seem to remember the argument being tossed
> about that "we might as well keep working on this one because there's
> all these others to wrap up."
Have you chaps considered a simple points system? Every patch would need
five minutes attention to triage it into one of: small (1 point),
medium (2), large (10), huge (50 points - Sync Repl etc). First CF gets
(say) 200 points, next 150, next 100, next 75. First-come, first-served
- if your patch goes over the limit it goes in the next commit-fest.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Boley | 2009-06-30 19:39:48 | Re: Multi-Dimensional Histograms |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-30 19:10:40 | Re: 8.5 development schedule |