> Huh? We've never guaranteed anyone a regular annual cycle, and we've
> never had one. We agreed to use the same schedule for 9.1 as for 9.0;
> I don't remember anything more than that being discussed anywhere,
> ever.
We *want* to have a regular annual cycle which doesn't vary by more than
a few weeks. This benefits people who have to schedule work with their
boss, or upgrades with their IT department. The fact that we haven't
achieved one yet is a flaw, not an argument.
>> I do think that we could bump the first CF up to July 1st, but I don't
>> think sooner than that is realistic without harming beta testing ... and
>> potentially delaying the release. Let's first demonstrate a track
>> record in getting a final release out consistently by July, and if that
>> works, maybe we can bump up the date.
>
> I have no idea where you're coming up with this estimate.
I don't know what estimate you're talking about. Reference?
> So I'm really rather suspicious that you know
> what's wrong with the process and how to fix it better than the people
> who are involved currently. I think we need here is more input from
> the people who are regularly submitting and reviewing patches, and
> those who have tried recently but been turned off by some aspect of
> the process.
I don't think the process *is* broken in any major way. It's just a
question of whether we could improve things further, and make the CF
process less annoying for some of the participants.
Tom just suggested that we could do better in week-a-month mode, and I
was thinking about ways to make that work, since it sounded attractive
to me. You'll also notice that I volunteered to run the first few CFs
if we decide to try it.
In other words, it wasn't my idea originally, and a few committers
supported it before I said anything, so ad hominem criticism isn't a
very good way to argue. You need to stop "going for the jugular"
whenever you disagree with people ;-)
Certainly the relevant decision is whether you, Tom, Heikki, Peter,
Kevin, Andrew, Jeff, Bruce, etc. think that a different time cycle will
improve things, since you are currently the ones paying the biggest
costs of any lack of optimization of the current system.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com