On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:53:32AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I do not think commitfest length is the problem (though surely it's not
> > working as intended). What happened with 9.5 is we forked the 9.6
> > development branch on June 30th, with the expectation of releasing in
> > September, and then couldn't release in September because nobody had done
> > any significant amount of stabilization work. Instead we had the 2015-07
> > commitfest. And the 2015-09 commitfest. And the 2015-11 commitfest.
>
> But I'm not very sure that we're talking about the same set of people
> here. If we're going to go to a system where nobody's allowed to
> commit anything for the next release until the current release is
> finalized, then we'd better have some procedure for making sure that
> happens relatively quickly. And the procedure can't be that the
> people who are hot to get started on the next release have to bat
> cleanup for the people who don't have time to fix the bugs they
> introduced previously. Because *that* would be manifestly unfair.
Unfair or not, that is probably the effect. I can also see people
publishing git trees to avoid this roadblock.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription +