Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> I think we used to do it more or less like that, but people
>> didn't like it because they couldn't do any long-range planning.
>
> Well, obviously the 8.4 release cycle did little to help them.
>
> As has already been observed, there is a crying need to say "no" at
> some point to get a release out.
>
> It might actually help to do that on big patches if we don't let too
> many tiny ones accumulate. I seem to remember the argument being tossed
> about that "we might as well keep working on this one because there's
> all these others to wrap up."
Have you chaps considered a simple points system? Every patch would need five minutes attention to triage it into one
of:small (1 point),
medium (2), large (10), huge (50 points - Sync Repl etc). First CF gets
(say) 200 points, next 150, next 100, next 75. First-come, first-served
- if your patch goes over the limit it goes in the next commit-fest.
-- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
