| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, 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 12:51:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZZSyV3GCc8F59+LceX=5QraM4oV9wp2Pt=UTK+81r=cg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday, May 17, 2024, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I 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?
>
In conjunction with WIP removing this limitation on the bimonthlies makes
sense to me.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2024-05-17 13:00:00 | Re: Streaming read-ready sequential scan code |
| Previous Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-05-17 12:51:05 | Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose |