Re: commit fests

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: commit fests
Date: 2010-01-23 16:23:51
Message-ID: 603c8f071001230823g2aeab693s3627b8ef05c3294e@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> What I'd really like is to stop arguing about the number of
>> CommitFests per cycle and the exact charter of each CommitFest and
>> start talking about how we can create an environment where patch
>> authors can get their work committed reasonably quickly (assuming
>> it's good, of course) and released within some reasonable time
>> frame after that
>
> Dimitri's reply with the "Too bad we can't have" portion makes me
> wonder whether we really can't.  Does it really take the concerted
> efforts of the whole community five months to take things from the
> deadline for patch commits (end of last CF) to release?

No.

> Is it that
> nobody would volunteer to take the burden of that effort so that
> others could code?

No.

> Perhaps it isn't that five months is outrageous,
> but that it doesn't really benefit from an unorganized swarm of
> activity by all the developers, and we've not worked out a
> reasonable framework for who should do what during that time to best
> benefit the project while giving all these volunteer and sponsored
> developers something they are willing to put effort into.

I think that's pretty close.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-23 16:32:37 Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-01-23 15:55:30 Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)