Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> I realize there is the perception that the large patches that were
> eventually rejected held up the release, but for all the patches I
> can think of, they were not rejected immediately _because_ we had
> other valid patches to work on. Once all valid patches were
> applied, we were quickly able to reject the large unready patches.
>
> So, rejecting the large patches earily would not have significantly
> moved the release date earlier.
Like Robert, I'm extremely skeptical of this claim, for the same
reasons.
However, even the *possibility* that this could be true is pretty
scary. If we need to effectively shut down new development for seven
months at the end of a release, in addition to the interim commit
fests, we'd better get a handle on why, so that can change. To what
do you attribute the extended time needed to handle the final CF?
How can that be made better?
-Kevin