Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> The recent and wide-ranging "formatting curmudgeons" thread included
> suggestions by Tom and myself that we should consider branching the
> tree immediately after beta1.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg01157.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg01162.php
> This didn't get much commentary, but others have expressed support for
> similar ideas in the past, so perhaps we should do it? Comments?
One small issue that would have to be resolved before branching is
whether and when to do a "final" pgindent run for 9.1. Seems like the
alternatives would be:1. Don't do anything more, be happy with the one run done already.2. Do another run just before
branching.3.Make concurrent runs against HEAD and 9.1 branch sometime later.
I don't much care for #3 because it would also affect whatever
developmental work had been done to that point, and thus have a
considerable likelihood of causing merge problems for WIP patches.
Not sure if enough has happened to really require #2.
But a much more significant issue is that I don't see a lot of point in
branching until we are actually ready to start active 9.2 development.
So unless you see this as a vehicle whereby committers get to start
hacking 9.2 but nobody else does, there's no point in cutting a branch
until shortly before a CommitFest opens. I'm not aware that we've set
any dates for 9.2 CommitFests yet ...
> The other major issue discussed on the thread was as to how frequent
> and how long CommitFests should be. I don't think we really came to a
> consensus on that one.
Yeah, it did not seem like there was enough evidence to justify a
change, and Greg's comments were discouraging. (Though you've run more
fests than he has, so I was surprised that you weren't arguing
similarly.) Should we consider scheduling one short-cycle fest during
9.2, just to see whether it works?
regards, tom lane