Re: damage control mode

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 05:54, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>>> Just to clarify: I am for sticking to the agreed dates.  If some things
>>> are not ready by the necessary date plus/minus one, they won't make the
>>> release.  If it's obvious earlier that something won't make the date, it
>>> shouldn't be committed, and maybe put on the backburner right now.  But
>>> AFAICT, that's independent of when it was submitted.  Some things that
>>> were submitted just the other day might be almost ready, some things
>>> that were first submitted many months ago are still not ready.
>>
>> In that case, Robert's comments about patches to bounce on Day 1 of the
>> commitfest are still valid, regardless of "patch size".  That is, if
>> we're getting patches which seem very unlikely to make the cut by
>> Feburary 15 (like KNNGiST, which currently doesn't even apply), then it
>> makes sense for the CFM to notify those authors as soon as possible that
>> their patch is probably last in line to get reviewed.
>
> If it doesn't even build by the time the CF starts (and didn't just
> break in the past couple of days), can it even be considered
> submitted? I think it's perfectly fair to bounce something that's been
> sitting in "waiting for author" for weeks *before* the CF starts at an
> early stage, to focus the resources on things that are up-to-date.

Well, if it's not updated before the CommitFest starts, sure. But I
suspect an update will come through at the last minute.

A few more large patches may show up, too, and some small ones almost
certainly will. The number of patches on the CommitFest page
typically increases very quickly in the last few days before we get
started.

...Robert