On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> done in the time available is another thing entirely. I do NOT want
>> to still be working on the items for this CommitFest in June - that's
>> about when I'd like to be releasing beta3.
>
> Except that's not how we work here. You want to change that with
> respect to the release management process and schedule (or lack
> thereof). Tradition and current practice say you need to reach
> consensus to be able to bypass compromising.
>
> Good luck with that.
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
in a timely fashion, which is something we have done consistently for
every CommitFest in the 9.0 and 9.1 cycles to date, including the last
CommitFest of the 9.0 cycle. It is not somehow a deviation from past
community practice to boot patches that can't be finished up in the
time available during the CommitFest. That has been routine practice
for a long time.
I have worked very hard on this CommitFest, both to line up patch
reviewers and to review myself. I want to make sure that every patch
gets a good, thorough review before the CommitFest is over. I think
there is general consensus that this is important and that we will
lose contributors if we don't do it. However, I don't want to prolong
the CommitFest indefinitely in the face of patches that the authors
are not actively working on or can't finish in the time available, or
where there is no consensus that the proposed change is what we want.
I believe that this, too, is a generally accepted principle in our
community, not something I just made up.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company