Peter Eisentraut-2 wrote
> On 12/11/14 1:35 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I have heard repeated concerns about the commitfest process in the past
>> few months. The fact we have been in a continual commitfest since
>> August also is concerning.
>
> I realized the other day, I'm embracing the idea of a continual
> commitfest.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, we might as well just have one commitfest per
> major release. Call it a patch list. Make the list sortable by created
> date and last-updated date, and let the system police itself. At least
> that's honest.
Having just written about the idea of a CF manager and a CF reviewer...
while having a continual CF works in theory I think breaking it down into,
say, quarters and having each pair commit to 3 months of being in charge has
some logic behind it.
The "patch list" concept should be formalized, and should include a
"targeted release" concept. The idea of a CF seems like it should apply to
the people involved and include an explicit choosing of items from the
"patch list" that are going to get attention by those people during the CF
period. A policy of every new addition being added to the next CF, along
with an item being involved in at least every other CF, would make sense.
Moving along the path of "continuous delivery" maybe just create "CF teams"
instead of a monolithic "CF process".
David J.
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/Commitfest-problems-tp5830061p5830189.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
