On 2013-09-15 17:03:10 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 2013-09-15 16:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >On Sun, 2013-09-15 at 16:09 +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> >>My understanding is that a Commit Fest is mainly about Reviewing, that's
> >>why I still added an entry for two designs that I need feedback on
> >>before actually coding a solution.
> >>
> >>Writing the code is the easiest part of those proposals, but that's only
> >>true as soon as we decide what code we should be writing.
> >
> >I understand why using the commit fest process is attractive for this,
> >because it enables you to force the issue. But the point of the commit
> >fest is to highlight patches whose discussion has mostly concluded and
> >get them committed. If we add general discussion to the commit fest,
> >it'll just become a mirror of the mailing list, and then we'll need yet
> >another level of process to isolate the ready patches from that.
>
> I have one item like this in the current commit fest. I wrote a PoC patch,
> but that's just a bad excuse to get around the issue that we don't really
> want just RFCs on there.
>
> The problem is when you post an idea requesting comments on -HACKERS, and
> nobody or only one person answers despite efforts to try and keep the
> discussion alive and/or revive it. What should one do in that case?
Adding it to the CF in that case seeems like a acceptable emergency
measure in the case that nobody has replied to a proposal in a couple of
days. But afaics, that's not the case with the patches that Peter is
complaining about. This issue certainly hasn't had a lack of comments
and the archive proposal is completely new, so I see where Peter is
coming from and I tend to agree.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services