On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> > On Jan 20, 2016 5:03 PM, "Andres Freund" <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >> 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
> > work..
> 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
I agree that it's not the same problem. I do believe that it is *a* problem
though, and a fairly significant one too. Because there's *never* any
downtime from CF mode, regardless of where in the cycle we are.
While not the same, we need to fix both.
We will not get back to on-schedule releases unless we can keep -hackers
> working on release testing/stabilization when it's time to do that,
> rather than being distracted by shiny new stuff going into the next