Message-ID: <4D529EE2.2010600@dunslane.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:04:18 -0500
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc13
	Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
CC: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1
References: <1295127631.3282.100.camel@ebony>	
	<4D397FE4.2020709@enterprisedb.com>
	<1295616270.1803.10799.camel@ebony>	
	<4D39A761.1020105@enterprisedb.com>
	<1295629194.1803.11957.camel@ebony>	
	<AANLkTinFTZjur8gP+35eDKPGBjFRbdPmCTHT87e8r4mx@mail.gmail.com>	
	<AANLkTikDK-1v6FfKGMA2j9VTPjnoC4ie_+c9dR2yHS3-@mail.gmail.com>	
	<14761.1295633002@sss.pgh.pa.us>	
	<AANLkTi=s4dHGt0my6QQ2oduhdyti8++bp4-_=Pxhzn7Z@mail.gmail.com>	
	<AANLkTikG8WMhOocX9AYsRHYPc-PgxPaG6miFDD9QH3i1@mail.gmail.com>	
	<1295703074.1803.19835.camel@ebony>	
	<AANLkTimcwkbmL9qxiWRsCRA0CoFt5_ePE97CapF7xiw7@mail.gmail.com>	
	<AANLkTimbcoPDUgZaX743ptg2e=99-zLgpVzjWWRvZoV8@mail.gmail.com>	
	<1297096419.1770.5824.camel@ebony>	
	<AANLkTikLyNAPoFmiQwT4pFj_sLtji1U=Bmc+dqKUVOnv@mail.gmail.com>	
	<21347.1297100595@sss.pgh.pa.us>	
	<AANLkTimX4DUMp5SmMGYMdmT_YwncLzJHpzJ+FbaDGAyW@mail.gmail.com>
	<1297256000.8685.217.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com>
In-Reply-To: <1297256000.8685.217.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 02/09/2011 07:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2011-02-07 at 12:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>  wrote:
>>> Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com>  writes:
>>>> ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ...
>>> Really?  I thought the idea for the last CF of a development cycle was
>>> that it kept going till we'd dealt with everything.  Arbitrarily
>>> rejecting stuff we haven't dealt with doesn't seem fair.
>> Uh, we did that with 8.4 and it was a disaster.  The CommitFest lasted
>> *five months*. We've been doing schedule-based CommitFests ever since
>> and it's worked much better.
> The previous three commit fests contained about 50 patches each and
> lasted one month each.  The current commit fest contains about 100
> patches, so it shouldn't be surprising that it will take about 2 months
> to get through it.
>
> Moreover, under the current process, it is apparent that reviewing is
> the bottleneck.  More code gets written than gets reviewed.  By
> insisting on the current schedule, we would just push the growing review
> backlog ahead of ourselves.  The solution (at least short-term, while
> maintaining the process) has to be to increase the resources (in
> practice: time) dedicated to reviewing relative to coding.


Personally I think it's not unreasonable to extend the final commitfest 
of the release some. It doesn't need to be a huge amount longer, 
certainly not five months, but a couple of weeks to a month might be fair.

cheers

andrew