> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I am assuming that at least Hot Standby and Streaming Replication will
>> likely require two CommitFests to go from the point where they are
>> seriously reviewable to actual commit.
FWIW, I think that both HS and SR are special cases: if we ever see
reviewable patches for them, people will probably be willing to work
on them outside the CommitFest framework. We shouldn't be setting
the schedule with the idea that those will only be dealt with in CFs.
To my mind the CF process is for dealing with "run of the mill" patches.
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> My concern is not just with those features, but with the whole ratio of
> the window for new work to the total development cycle. That ratio keeps
> going down and the time the tree is effectively frozen to new features
> keeps going up.
Yup. This is a huge problem and we need to deal with it somehow. At
the same time, I'm worried that our beta testing process is already
inadequate. We've found several rather embarrassing bugs in 8.4, for
instance, things that should have been found in beta IMO. Shortening
beta or encouraging people to start next-cycle development instead of
testing doesn't seem like a wise move. You can't just develop all
the time, you have to test & debug too ...
regards, tom lane
