On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 9:54 AM Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
> I agree with you. Before commitfests were a thing, we had no structure
> at all as I recall. The dates for the dev cycle were more fluid as I
> recall, and we had no CF app to track things. Maybe retaining the
> structure but going back to the continuous development would be just the
> thing, with the CF app tracking just the currently (as of this
> week/month/???) active stuff.
The main thing that we'd gain from that is to avoid all the work of
pushing lots of things forward to the next CommitFest at the end of
every CommitFest. While I agree that we need to find a better way to
handle that, I don't think it's really the biggest problem. The core
problems here are (1) keeping stuff out of CommitFests that don't
belong there and (2) labelling stuff that does belong in the
CommitFest in useful ways. We should shape the solution around those
problems. Maybe that will solve this problem along the way, but if it
doesn't, that's easy enough to fix afterward.
Like, we could also just have a button that says "move everything
that's left to the next CommitFest". That, too, would avoid the manual
work that this would avoid. But it wouldn't solve any other problems,
so it's not really worth much consideration.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com