Re: branching for 9.2devel

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I just searched backwards on this thread and I can't find it.
>
>> I think he's talking about the bottom of this post:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/BANLkTimnjZNemdpqgK=8Mj=pzq33Pz0ntQ@mail.gmail.com
>
> ... which was:
>
>        CF #1: June 1-30
>        CF #2: August 1-31
>        CF #3: October 1-31
>        CF #4 (one week shortened CF): December 1-7
>        CF #5: January 1-31
>
> I think the main thing we have to think about before choosing is whether
> we believe that we can shorten the CFs at all.  Josh's proposal had
> 3-week CFs after the first one, which makes it a lot easier to have a
> fest in November or December, but only if you really can end it on time.
>

If we made the "deadline" for patch acceptance into 9.2 CF#4, then
shortening that to a two week cycle whose main goal was simply to
sanity check patches for 9.2 would probably work. Most would probably
still need further work, which we would expect to get handled in the
final, full CF#5, but we wouldn't let anything new come into CF#5.
This way when we get the 100 patch pile up in CF#4, there's no
expectation that those patches will be committed, just that they can
be sanity checked for the 9.2 release.

Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com