From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200704301128.l3UBSpb19888@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report
In-Reply-To: <46352C6D.1020402@dunslane.net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:28:51 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>,
	Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I don't think we need a sync point. I think we need to get better at 
> setting expectations and at managing the patch queue so that it gets 
> drained better all the time. Nothing can be more frustrating for patch 
> authors than to have patches in the queue for a very long time. They 
> bitrot, and we sometime end up throwing curly questions at authors long 
> after the issues are hot in their minds. I'd like to see us set 
> ourselves some targets for handling patches. Something like: patches 
> held over from feature freeze from the previous release will be reviewed 
> within two months of the tree re-opening, and all other patches will be 
> reviewed within one month of being submitted. That implies that one 
> month after feature freeze the tree will only be open for bug fixes. Any 
> patches unapplied at that time would be held over. Maybe that would give 
> pgAdmin and friends enough head room to catch up.

This is what already happens, and if it doesn't happen sometimes, it is
just because people are too busy.  Making arbitrary deadlines isn't
going to help, partly because we have little control over our community.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +