On 4/20/11 12:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, no, that's not the whole story. To me, what the above idea
> implies is shifting more of the burden of fixing up patches away from
> the committer and back to the patch author. Instead of spending time
> fixing up not-quite-ready patches myself, I'd be much more ready to
> tell the patch author "do X, Y, and Z, and come back next month".
Yes, definitely! For that matter, booting a patch which got no review
is less of a problem if we're only booting it for 3 weeks.
The whole purpose of the CFs was not to help submitters -- it was to
help reviewers. If we just wanted to help submitters, we'd do
Continuous Integration, and review all the time. But the reviewers need
"time off".
I think we should try this for 9.2. Given the accumulation between then
and now, I think the first CF should be 2 weeks, and then we can move to
monthly/weeklong CFs after that. So it would look like:
CF1: July 16-31
CF2: August 1-7
CF3: September 1-7
CF4: October 1-7
CF5: November 1-7
CF6: December 1-7
CF7: January 3-10
CF8: February until done
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com