Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D529EE2.2010600@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1 (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/09/2011 07:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On mån, 2011-02-07 at 12:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >>>> ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ... >>> Really? I thought the idea for the last CF of a development cycle was >>> that it kept going till we'd dealt with everything. Arbitrarily >>> rejecting stuff we haven't dealt with doesn't seem fair. >> Uh, we did that with 8.4 and it was a disaster. The CommitFest lasted >> *five months*. We've been doing schedule-based CommitFests ever since >> and it's worked much better. > The previous three commit fests contained about 50 patches each and > lasted one month each. The current commit fest contains about 100 > patches, so it shouldn't be surprising that it will take about 2 months > to get through it. > > Moreover, under the current process, it is apparent that reviewing is > the bottleneck. More code gets written than gets reviewed. By > insisting on the current schedule, we would just push the growing review > backlog ahead of ourselves. The solution (at least short-term, while > maintaining the process) has to be to increase the resources (in > practice: time) dedicated to reviewing relative to coding. Personally I think it's not unreasonable to extend the final commitfest of the release some. It doesn't need to be a huge amount longer, certainly not five months, but a couple of weeks to a month might be fair. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: