Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I do not think commitfest length is the problem (though surely it's not
>> working as intended). What happened with 9.5 is we forked the 9.6
> I agree that it's not the same problem. I do believe that it is *a* problem
> though, and a fairly significant one too. Because there's *never* any
> downtime from CF mode, regardless of where in the cycle we are.
True, we've been failing badly on the intention that there would be time
off from CF mode, and I'd like to see a fix for that. I do not think it's
directly related to the can't-get-a-release-out problem.
I'm not really sure why we've allowed CFs to drift on, though. Can't we
just arbitrarily decree them closed on the last day of the month? And
push unfinished work to the next one? Admittedly, this probably doesn't
work for the last CF of a release cycle, but that one's always been a
special case.
regards, tom lane