From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Commitfest problems |
Date: | 2014-12-11 18:26:53 |
Message-ID: | 5489E1ED.2070207@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/11/2014 09:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> On 12/11/14 1:35 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> While the commitfest process hasn't changed much and was very successful
>>> in the first few years, a few things have changed externally:
>>>
>>> 1 more new developers involved in contributing small patches
>>> 2 more full-time developers creating big patches
>>> 3 increased time demands on experienced Postgres developers
>
>> The number of patches registered in the commit fests hasn't actually
>> changed over the years. It has always fluctuated between 50 and 100,
>> depending on the point of the release cycle. So I don't think (1) is
>> necessarily the problem.
I don't think that's accurate. The number of patches per CF *has* edged
upwards by 10-30% per CF over the years:
http://www.databasesoup.com/2013/08/94-commitfest-1-wrap-up.html
(I haven't done the rest of 9.4 yet or 9.5)
No, it's not a jump up by 2X, but it is an upwards trend. And I think
that Tom has it right that the additional patches we're seeing are
additional large, complex patches.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2014-12-11 18:27:34 | Re: WIP patch for Oid formatting in printf/elog strings |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-12-11 18:24:20 | Re: 9.5 release scheduling (was Re: logical column ordering) |