| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: new commitfest transition guidance |
| Date: | 2025-02-06 00:14:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmjoXAJmovkaRNHKA1YcAaqFpebbVjkUExmQ_wzVPvdRg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 8:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> As of right now, I see that 79 CF entries have been manually pushed to
> 2025-03 (but it's hard to tell how many of those were moved before
> 2025-01 closed). 180 live entries are still in 2025-01, including
> 20 RfC ones. I think this experiment is already proving to be a
> failure, and if you increase the cost of compliance substantially,
> people just won't do it at all.
Evidently this new policy is why my skip scan patch series wasn't
being tested by CI.
I just don't think that this new policy makes sense. At least not as
implemented. Do we all now need to set ourselves reminders to re-enter
patches to each CF, lest we be accused of abandoning patches due to a
lack of interest?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-02-06 00:29:35 | Re: new commitfest transition guidance |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2025-02-05 23:58:54 | Re: Better visualization of default values |