Re: wrapping up this CommitFest (was Re: knngist - 0.8)

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 20:26, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Since we appear to be still holding the commitfest open for Sync Rep,
>>>> I guess this ought to get reviewed.
>>>
>>> Or else we should close the CommitFest and cut alpha4.  Anyone have an
>>> opinion on which way to go?
>>
>> I think we can give Sync Rep until the 15th, given the pace of work on
>> it.  It is a major feature, and a complicated one.
>
> Sure, but there are other features, major and minor, that we have
> postponed to 9.2.  In the normal course of events, sync rep would have
> been marked Returned with Feedback a month ago.  I like the feature,
> but I have to say I'm not very pleased that we seem to have fallen
> into a pattern of believing that some major features are somehow
> exempted from the scheduling deadline and others are not.  I am sure
> there are plenty of other people who would have liked a six week
> extension of the usual CommitFest deadlines too, but they didn't get
> it (and for the most part, were pretty gracious about that).
>
>> We could even cut a pre-synch-rep Alpha4 *now*, and follow that with a
>> post-synch-rep Alpha5 sometime around April 1.
>>
>> That'll put us in a good position for beta, and also to see what
>> specific issue SynR adds.
>
> Frankly, I think we should be aiming to get a beta out in April, not
> another alpha.

That would be good, but in order to get there, +1 for cutting a new
alpha even if syncrep isn't ready for it yet. That way we can at least
get some more testing on all the non-syncrep code.

That is assuming that cutting an alpha release isn't all that much
work, but IIRC it's not. (Hey, I know it's not much work for me, but
someone who actually does the work should comment on the total
amount...)

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/