On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 01:12:30PM -0800, Joe Conway wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 12/11/2014 01:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 03:47:29PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> On 12/11/14 1:35 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> I have heard repeated concerns about the commitfest process in > >>> the past few months. The fact we have been in a continual > >>> commitfest since August also is concerning. > >> > >> I realized the other day, I'm embracing the idea of a continual > >> commitfest. > >> > >> I'm still working on patches from the last commitfest. Why not? > >> They didn't expire. Sure, it would have been nicer to get them > >> done sooner, but what are you gonna do? The fact that Nov 15 < > >> now < Dec 15 isn't going to change the fact that I have a few > >> hours to spare right now and the patches are still relevant. > >> > >> As far as I'm concerned, we might as well just have one > >> commitfest per major release. Call it a patch list. Make the > >> list sortable by created date and last-updated date, and let the > >> system police itself. At least that's honest. > > > > Wow, that's radical, and interesting. > > Actually, to me it sounds a lot like what we did 10 years ago before > the commitfests except with a way to track the patches (other than the > mail archives) and more people participating in patch reviews.
Yes, it does remind me of the mbox files I put on the web. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
