| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest II CLosed |
| Date: | 2013-10-21 19:01:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaVPBY4-oQsTvmC7VoiMZoLmMjjm1xv8XyE_DE=N_e8OA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 10/21/13 9:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I am not 100% sure, but what's the point of the CF if we're not actually
>> reviewing patches that wouldn't get review without it? So I guess it's
>> not starting the next one before we've finished - which we obviously
>> haven't in this case - the last one.
>
> The point is to get people to do some reviewing in the first place. If
> people don't want to review certain things or are exhausted after a
> month, extending the commitfest is not going to achieve much.
I agree with that, but I agree with Andres, too. CommitFests are
supposed to be time-bounded, and they're also supposed to get a
certain amount of work done, and they're supposed to do it using
all-volunteer labor. Guaranteeing all of those things simultaneously
clearly isn't possible; and yet some past CommitFest managers have
been far more successful at it than others. I think it's more of an
art than a science.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-10-21 19:06:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Cube extension point support // GSoC'13 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-10-21 18:59:28 | Re: Commitfest II CLosed |