Kevin Grittner wrote:
Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I think we used to do it more or less like that, but people
didn't like it because they couldn't do any long-range planning.
Well, obviously the 8.4 release cycle did little to help them.
As has already been observed, there is a crying need to say "no" at
some point to get a release out.
It might actually help to do that on big patches if we don't let too
many tiny ones accumulate. I seem to remember the argument being tossed
about that "we might as well keep working on this one because there's
all these others to wrap up."
Have you chaps considered a simple points system? Every patch would need
five minutes attention to triage it into one of: small (1 point),
medium (2), large (10), huge (50 points - Sync Repl etc). First CF gets
(say) 200 points, next 150, next 100, next 75. First-come, first-served
- if your patch goes over the limit it goes in the next commit-fest.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
