Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > Even before this CommitFest, it's felt to me like this hasn't been a > great cycle for reviewing. I think we have generally had fewer people > doing reviews than we did during the 9.0 and 9.1 cycles. I think we > had a lot of momentum with the CommitFest process when it was new, but > three years on I think there's been some ebbing of the relative > enthusiastic volunteerism that got off the ground. I don't have a
I have another analysis here. Tom once said that commiters won't grow on tree, and that is true for submitters too, obviously. I think the CF process has been good into growing more submitters and growing existing ones abilities too. So you don't have that fewer reviewers available, it may be that they're just heavily involved into being submitters too. Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Yeah, this is something I was thinking about yesterday. In the first > couple of release cycles with the CommitFest process, we were willing to > let the last fest of a release cycle go on for "as long as it takes", > or at least that was what I felt the policy to be. This time we > eventually gave up and declared closure, but in hindsight we should > likely have done that a month earlier. The fact of the matter is that > quite a few of the patches we were dealing with were *not* ready to > commit, or even close to that, at the start of the fest. If it weren't > the last fest they would have gotten marked Returned With Feedback a > lot sooner. This and other posts in this threads are all hinting the same thing to me: the last commit fest is *not* about feedback at all. If you still need reviewers rather than commiters, you're out of luck for this release, see you next time. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
