The recent and wide-ranging "formatting curmudgeons" thread included suggestions by Tom and myself that we should consider branching the tree immediately after beta1.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg01157.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg01162.php This didn't get much commentary, but others have expressed support for similar ideas in the past, so perhaps we should do it? Comments? The other major issue discussed on the thread was as to how frequent and how long CommitFests should be. I don't think we really came to a consensus on that one. I think that's basically a trade-off: if we make CommitFests more frequent and shorter, we can give people feedback more quickly (but I'm not sure that problem is horribly bad anyway - witness that there have been numerous reviews of WIP patches in just the last few weeks while we've been pursuing beta hard) and committers will have more time to work on their own projects, BUT the rejection rate will go up, patch authors will get less help finishing their work, it'll be harder to organize reviewers (see esp. the note by Greg Smith in that regard), and there may be even more of a crush at the end of the release cycle. On balance, I think I prefer the current arrangement, though if we could make the CommitFests a bit shorter I would certainly like that better. I don't know how to make that happen without more reviewers, though. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
