On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:27:13PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> When I came up with the idea of CommitFests they were supposed to be an
> incremental improvement for us to build on. Instead it's remained
> frozen in amber, and steadily becoming less and less effective. I've
> suggested a number of improvements and changes over the years, and
> largely been rewarded with denial, attacks, ridicule, and general
> sandbaggery. I'm done. If the community doesn't think there's a
> problem, then clearly I'm in error for proposing fixes.
>
> Not sure who you're going to get to do CF3, though. I'm not going to be
> CFM again, and I'm pretty sure nobody else wants the job either.
For what it's worth, I liked how you ran CF 2013-06. It proceeded better than
any CF of the 9.3 development cycle. I can appreciate that it drained you,
though; you tried new things, and your reward was lots of flak. Your
innovations were 85% good; sadly, debate raged over the negative aspects only.
Perhaps that arises from how we deal with code. An 85%-good patch can still
wreak havoc in the field; closing that gap is essential. We say little about
the correct aspects of a patch; it's usually a given that things not mentioned
are satisfactory and have self-evident value. That's not such an effective
discussion pattern when the topic is management strategies.
Thanks,
nm
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
