commit fests (was Re: primary key error message)

On tor, 2010-01-21 at 17:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> But let me ask this.  For which
> release were you hoping to make this change?  If 9.0, then it seems to
> me that you've missed the deadline, which - according to my
> understanding of the agreed-upon schedule - was six days ago.

By that logic, the next release must be called 8.5, because the deadline
for proposing changes was six days ago.

> Or perhaps you feel that that deadline should only apply to
> non-committers?  If so, we should be clear about that, because I have
> a few things which I would have liked to submit but was unable to get
> done before the start of the CommmitFest.  I would be more than happy
> to finish them up and propose them now, but my understanding is that
> I'm not supposed to do that.

My understanding is that the commit fest process is an offer or perhaps
even a promise to patch submitters that their stuff will be attended to
within 2 or 3 months, instead of the 10 months or infinity that might
have been the previous average.  And in order to make that "attending"
happen, the development participants are encouraged to focus on
reviewing the submitted patches.

But I don't think that should mean everyone has to drop everything when
the clock strikes midnight and must now only look at things that the
magic commitfest page has pre-approved.  Nobody does that anyway.  It
just means what you submit now does not get the same "promise" of
attention.  Of course if you start proposing new significant features
now then it might be obvious that the discussion and review process
cannot possibly be concluded by the time the release is scheduled, so
you might as well not bother.  But if things have been discussed before
or are simple enough and you just didn't get the thing done in time, why
not finish it up.  I don't think anyone could accuse you of neglecting
the CF, as you are known to do your share.  So I personally encourage
you to try to finish what you have started.  If no one wants to review
it and you don't want to take responsibility yourself, well then.  And
if someone proposes something that might be as simple as the MySQL
compatibility thing, assuming a consensus, why not include it, instead
of bumping it to 2012-Next for the sake of the process.