peter_e@gmx.net (Peter Eisentraut) writes:
> I suggest going with four commit fests. Three is too short. We already
> started the first one early, which didn't give those involved in the
> release any time to prepare some patches for it. So with three fests
> you'd only give the major developers 8 weeks to code something for a
> yearly release.
Partial counter-argument...
A large portion of the patches in CommitFest #1 represented items that
had been deferred from 8.4. So...
a) Many of these patches came in with ~6 months of preparation time
b) People were always free to start work earlier than CommitFest #1
c) If something requires a *lot* of work, then it may be that it gets deferred so that it comes in as part of
CommitFest#1 for 8.6, with the very same characteristics as in a)...
I do agree that trying to force coordination with a specific conference
in Ottawa seems like a very peculiar sort of forced scheduling.
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'ca.afilias.info';
Christopher Browne
"Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"