On 2024-04-08 Mo 12:07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2024-Apr-08, Robert Haas wrote:
And maybe we need to think of a way to further mitigate this crush of
last minute commits. e.g. In the last week, you can't have more
feature commits, or more lines of insertions in your commits, than you
did in the prior 3 weeks combined. I don't know. I think this mad rush
of last-minute commits is bad for the project.
Another idea is to run a patch triage around mid March 15th, with the
intention of punting patches to the next cycle early enough. But rather
than considering each patch in its own merits, consider the responsible
_committers_ and the load that they are reasonably expected to handle:
determine which patches each committer deems his or her responsibility
for the rest of that March commitfest, and punt all the rest. That way
we have a reasonably vetted amount of effort that each committer is
allowed to spend for the remainder of that commitfest. Excesses should
be obvious enough and discouraged.
I quite like the triage idea. But I think there's also a case for being
more a bit more flexible with those patches we don't throw out. A case
close to my heart: I'd have been very sad if the NESTED piece of
JSON_TABLE hadn't made the cut, which it did with a few hours to spare,
and I would not have been alone, far from it. I'd have been happy to
give Amit a few more days or a week if he needed it, for a significant
headline feature.
I know there will be those who say it's the thin end of the wedge and
rulez is rulez, but this is my view.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
