Magnus Hagander wrote: > Except that we need to do it for the last one as well. With the only > exception that the last one might be a bit longer. But the fact is that the > recent of CFs *and* releases, we've taken the approach of closing the CF > when everything in it is done or explicitly reviewed-and-bumped, and tried > really really hard not to bump things because nobody had time to look at > them. That's what I'm suggesting we change, and actually just cut them. > Yes, one of the reasons for the CFs was to allow people a fair chance to > get reviewed.But given that there isn't actually a deadline in practice > doesn't help with that.
We have a rule in the commitfest process, which I mentioned in some other thread yesterday, which we have never enforced as far as I remember -- which is that the last commitfest only accepts patches that have already been submitted to previous commitfests. If we were to enforce that one, I think we put a limit to the size of the last commitfest, reducing the amount of work necessary to close it. I definitely think we should be stricter about closing each commitfest on the last day of the month. To improve on the fairness front we could also be stricter about giving priority to reviewing patches that have been punted from previous commitfest. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers