Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> wrote: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> CF #1: June 1-30 >> CF #2: August 1-31 >> CF #3: October 1-31 >> CF #4 (one week shortened CF): December 1-7 >> CF #5: January 1-31 >> >> I think the main thing we have to think about before choosing is >> whether we believe that we can shorten the CFs at all. Josh's >> proposal had 3-week CFs after the first one, which makes it a lot >> easier to have a fest in November or December, but only if you >> really can end it on time. > > If we made the "deadline" for patch acceptance into 9.2 CF#4, then > shortening that to a two week cycle whose main goal was simply to > sanity check patches for 9.2 would probably work. Most would > probably still need further work, which we would expect to get > handled in the final, full CF#5, but we wouldn't let anything new > come into CF#5. This way when we get the 100 patch pile up in > CF#4, there's no expectation that those patches will be committed, > just that they can be sanity checked for the 9.2 release. Which makes it not really a CommitFest, but rather ... a SanityFest? To make sure I understand you, you're suggesting no WIP patch review in the last two CFs? (Of course nothing stops someone from looking at someone else's WIP between fests.) Would a patch submitted to #4, the sanity of which was questioned, be eligible for another try in #5. I'm just trying to picture how this idea might work. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
