On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I'm not trying to bypass compromising, and I don't know what makes you
>> think otherwise. I am trying to ensure that the CommitFest wraps up
>
> Well, I'm too tired to allow myself posting such comments, sorry to have
> left the previous mail through.
Thanks, I understand.
> More than one commit fest saw its time
> frame extended for 1 or 2 weeks already, I think, all I'm saying is that
> this one will certainly not be an exception, and that's for the best.
We've actually done really well. The last CommitFest in 9.0 wrapped
up on 2/17 (two days late), and the others were mostly right on time
as well. The CommitFests for 9.1 ended on: 8/15 (on time), 10/26 (9
days late, but there was no activity on the last two of those days, so
say 7 days late), and 12/21 (six days late). As far as I can tell,
the difference primarily has to do with who manages the CommitFests
and how aggressively they follow up on patches that are dropped. The
last CommitFest we have that really ran late was the final CommitFest
of the 8.4 cycle, and it was that event that led me to accept Josh
Berkus's invitation to be a CF manager for the first 9.0 CommitFest.
Because five month CommitFests with the tree frozen are awful and
sucky for everyone except the people who are getting extra time to
finish their patches, and they aren't really that great for those
people either.
As far as I am concerned, everything from now until we've released a
stable beta with no known issues is time that I can't spend doing
development. So I'd like to minimize that time - not by arbitrarily
throwing patches out the window - but by a combination of postponing
patches that are not done and working my ass off to finish as much as
possible.
> Be sure I appreciate the efforts you're putting into the mix!
Thanks.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company