Re: Commitfest problems

On 12/11/2014 02:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> While the CFs are still doing (1), support for (2) ended sometime in the
>> 9.3 development cycle. Partly this is because current CFMs are not
>> permitted to take authoritative steps to ensure that the CF ends on
>> time, and partly it's because of the increase in big complicated patches
>> which just don't fit into the CF cycle.
>
> I don't see why you think CFMs are not "permitted" to close out a CF
> when they want to. At least some of the fests have been closed out per
> calendar schedule, punting unprocessed patches to the next fest. We've
> certainly utterly failed to do that since August, but I think that's
> mismanagement.

I love how you're willing to accuse Michael of mismangement when you
yourself have *never* run a CF. If I was Michael, I'd quit right now.

Every CFM who has taken forceful measures to close out the CF on time
has gotten a large amount of flack for it, and absolutely zero back-up
from the committers or the core team. This is why David, Robert and I
will no longer manage CFs (and probably others as well). The CFM is
expected to miraculously end the CF on time, without bouncing or
forwarding unreviewed patches, cutting off patches which already had one
round of review, bouncing out or holding patches from contributors who
don't participate in the review process, nagging anyone too much, or
taking any other steps which anyone might take exception to.

In fact, the technique you cite (just punting the patches to the next
CF) resulted in Fetter getting a great deal of hassling on this list
when he did it. The only people who backed him up on it were other
former CFMs. And I closed out my CF on my expected schedule (based on
number of patches), but only after taking so much shit for it, I'm never
doing it again. And I have a pretty high tolerance for taking shit.

So now you're left with CFMs who won't do anything to wind up the CF
because they know that the committers and hackers will *not* support
them if they do. So, eternal CF.

How about *you* run the next one, Tom?

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