On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:53:32AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I do not think commitfest length is the problem (though surely it's not > > working as intended). What happened with 9.5 is we forked the 9.6 > > development branch on June 30th, with the expectation of releasing in > > September, and then couldn't release in September because nobody had done > > any significant amount of stabilization work. Instead we had the 2015-07 > > commitfest. And the 2015-09 commitfest. And the 2015-11 commitfest. > > But I'm not very sure that we're talking about the same set of people > here. If we're going to go to a system where nobody's allowed to > commit anything for the next release until the current release is > finalized, then we'd better have some procedure for making sure that > happens relatively quickly. And the procedure can't be that the > people who are hot to get started on the next release have to bat > cleanup for the people who don't have time to fix the bugs they > introduced previously. Because *that* would be manifestly unfair.
Unfair or not, that is probably the effect. I can also see people publishing git trees to avoid this roadblock. -- 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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers