Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Brendan Jurd wrote:
>> So, what naming scheme should we go with? I guess I would lean
>> towards "CommitFest YYYY-MM" for easy lexical sorting.
> I don't know. Maybe that is a good format. Maybe we should be naming
> them "8.4 CommitFest 1,2,3". This whole Year/Month format presumes a
> schedule that may or may not happen. For example: the next CommitFest is
> named "May 2008" right now. But what if it isn't then? Maybe some people
> end up on vacation and the whole thing slips a month. If the page was
> named "CommitFest 8.4-2" instead that problem goes away (but lexical
> sorting falls apart circa 10.0-1).
Well, naming them after version numbers is doomed to fail even sooner
than that --- what happens when we decide that, say, 8.5 is going to be
called 9.0 instead? Those sorts of decisions have always been made at
the ends of release cycles, so you'd be stuck with retroactively
renaming the pages.
I think the year/month naming idea is fine, at least for as far ahead
as we can see at the moment. There's no intention of allowing the
commit fests to slip.
> ... If it's not clearly impacting how people work, forget about it
> for now.
Agreed.
regards, tom lane