> The problem I ran into was that by the time I had them all wrapped up major
> new commits to the CVS tree made it uninteresting to benchmark the snapshot
> I had. Also I think a new version of HOT had been posted.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking of.  The Sun benchmarking folks would 
have done more testing of HOT, much earlier, if not for those issues.  

Anyway, is there anyone who thinks the "cycle the queue every 6 weeks or 2 
months or suitable short period" is a *bad* idea?   It might be hard to pull 
off, but we won't know until we try.

It'll also help keep vacation/summer schedules from being an issue for release 
timelines, since review will go on year-round and not just in the n.h. 
summer.  And, as a bonus for the reviewers, this means that rather than 
having to devote yourselves full-time to review for 4 months out of the year, 
you can space it out in short bursts so that you don't get worn out looking 
at other people's code instead of working on your own for months!

I'm excited about this, and think it's the best suggestion I've heard in years 
for how to improve our review process.  Can we do it?

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to