On Jan 20, 2016 5:03 PM, "Andres Freund" <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-01-20 10:55:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > 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.
> Said twiddling seems to largely happened from July to December. In which
> the other branch was open, and no 9.5 commitfest was happening. If we
> move the commitfests to earlier, but still have a half year of nothing
> happening, we're still in a bad situation.
> FWIW, looking at the last few commitfests, aside heroic and
> unsustainable efforts by individual CF managers, I haven't noticed any
> effect of when fests started/stopped. Aside from a short time increase
> in unfinished patches being posted the day before the next CFs starts.

Yeah, we seem to be firmly stuck at two month long commitfests started
every two months. The plan was for them to be one month..

Maybe we should try just very drastically cutting them at one month and
bumping everything left. No questions asked, no extra time for anybody.
Regardless of if it's the first or the last commitfest.

Just to see what happens. Because what we are doing now clearly doesn't


Reply via email to