All,
> +1 from me for keeping it as-is as well.
So it sounds like most committers want to keep the CFs on their existing schedule for another year. Also that we don't
wantto branch until RC1. While it would be nice to get some feedback from those who had bad experiences with the CF
cycle,I don't know how to get it ... and the complaints I've received from submitters are NOT about the CF cycle.
What it sounds like we do have consensus on, though, is:
a) improving pg_indent so that it can be run portably, easily, and repeatably
b) greatly improving the "so you want to submit a patch" documentation
c) making CFs a little shorter (3 weeks instead of 4?)
I'll also add one of my own: developing some kind of dependable mentoring system for first-time patch submitters.
Beyond that, are we ready to set the schedule for 9.2 yet? I'd tend to say that:
CF1: July 1-30
CF2: Sept 1-21
CF3: November 1-21
CF4: January 3-31
Realistically, given that we usually seem to still be hacking in March, we could have a 5th CF which would be
exclusivelyfor patches already reviewed in CF4 and "tiny" patches. *however*, we've historically been extremely poor
inenforcing gatekeeping rules on what's accepted to a CF, so I'm not sure that's a good idea.
Oh, and just so Robert will get off my back, I volunteer to run the 9.2CF1. Since I'm a better administrator than a
reviewer.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
San Francisco
