On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:55:07AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I think this has very little to do with commitfest schedules, and much
> > more with the "early" forking of the new version branch. For both 9.4
> > and 9.5 we essentially spent a couple months twiddling our thumbs.
> It's certainly true that we twiddled our thumbs quite a bit about
> getting 9.5 ready to ship.  However, the old process where nobody
> could get anything committed for six months out of the year blew
> chunks, too.  Personally, I think that the solution is to cut off the
> last CommitFest a lot sooner, and then reopen the tree for the next
> release as soon as possible.  But this never works, because there are
> always patches we want to slip in late.

The bottom line is we can't sustain five commitfests and stay on time
--- we need to go back to four, which I think is what we used to do.  We
twiddled our thumbs back in the September-release years too, but had
consistency because twiddling was built into the schedule.

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription                             +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to