On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 01:12:30PM -0800, Joe Conway wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/11/2014 01:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 03:47:29PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut 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.
> >>
> >> I'm still working on patches from the last commitfest. Why not?
> >> They didn't expire. Sure, it would have been nicer to get them
> >> done sooner, but what are you gonna do? The fact that Nov 15 <
> >> now < Dec 15 isn't going to change the fact that I have a few
> >> hours to spare right now and the patches are still relevant.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Wow, that's radical, and interesting.
>
> Actually, to me it sounds a lot like what we did 10 years ago before
> the commitfests except with a way to track the patches (other than the
> mail archives) and more people participating in patch reviews.
Yes, it does remind me of the mbox files I put on the web.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
