Sorry for the previous, content-free reply.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Here's where I think we are with this CommitFest.
>
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04
>
> I'm gonna go out on a limb and hope you meant '2011-02-14' there. :)
Yeah, sorry.
>> So there are two basic difficulties with wrapping the CommitFest up.
>
> I have to say that I've always been a bit suprised by the idea that the
> CommitFest is intended to be done and all patches *committed* at the end
> of the month. It's been working really rather well, which is due in
> great part to the excellent CF managers (thanks again for being that,
> again). That said, we have quite a few non-committer reviewers who
> provide good feedback and move the patch back to 'waiting for author'
> and that whole process takes a while.
It does, but frankly I don't see much reason to change it, since it's
been working pretty well on the whole. Andrew was on point when he
mentioned that it's not obvious what committers get out of working on
other people's patches. Obviously, the answer is, well, they get a
better PostgreSQL, and that's ultimately good for all of us. But the
trickiest part of this whole process is that, on the one hand, it's
not fair for committers to ignore other people's patches, but on the
other hand, it's not fair to expect committers to sacrifice getting
their own projects done to get other people's projects done.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company