On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> > You are assuming that only commit-fest work is required to get us to
>> > beta. ?You might remember the long list of open items I faced in January
>> > that I have whittled down, but I still have about twenty left.
>> >
>> > Tom has done work fixing optimizer bugs introduced in 8.4. ?I have had
>> > EnterpriseDB work to do and am working on the release notes now. ?The
>> > bottom line is that there is lots of cleanup required to get to beta
>> > independent of the last commit fest work.
>>
>> Sure. I don't have a problem with that. But I don't see what it has
>> to do with the point of my original post, which is that it we can
>> either make the release happen on time, or we can get all of the
>> patches reviewed, but we can only do both if the committers have the
>> time and energy to make that happen. Do you disagree?
>
> I agree. My point was that we let hot standby and se-pg stay around
> longer than necessary because we were involved in other things. We
> could have said they had sufficient review in January if those were the
> only things holding us up.
Right, that's what I think too. Or at least we could have said that
we weren't going to review them any more right now, leaving aside the
question of sufficiency.
Basically, for the project to grow, it needs more committers, and the
precondition for being added as a committer should be a promise to
spend a certain amount of time reviewing and committing patches other
than your own. According to the wiki, we have 15 committers, which is
more than enough, but most of those are inactive or are just there as
maintainers for very specific portions of the code.
Failing that, we will continue to argue about whether to slip releases
or ignore patches. I don't like either of those options very much.
...Robert