| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose |
| Date: | 2024-05-17 13:08:53 |
| Message-ID: | 98dca415-7100-4d89-928d-137041d04345@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17.05.24 14:42, Joe Conway wrote:
>> Namely, the week before commitfest I don't actually know if I will
>> have the time during that month, but I will make sure my patch is in
>> the commitfest just in case I get a few clear days to work on it.
>> Because if it isn't there, I can't take advantage of those "found" hours.
>
> A solution to both of these issues (yours and mine) would be to allow
> things to be added *during* the CF month. What is the point of having a
> "freeze" before every CF anyway? Especially if they start out clean. If
> something is ready for review on day 8 of the CF, why not let it be
> added for review?
Maybe this all indicates that the idea of bimonthly commitfests has run
its course. The original idea might have been, if we have like 50
patches, we can process all of them within a month. We're clearly not
doing that anymore. How would the development process look like if we
just had one commitfest per dev cycle that runs from July 1st to March 31st?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-05-17 13:11:42 | Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-05-17 13:05:18 | Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose |