Robert,
> I would like to propose an additional stipulation on CF4 - namely,
> that we will reject out of hand any large patches that were not
> submitted to CF3. For the sake of definiteness, let's say that a
> large patch is anything whether diffstat run against the unified diff
> shows lines added + lines removed >= 1000.
I thought that we agreed it would be better just to give the CFM the
authority to decide the "too big" issue, rather than a specific count of
rows.
> Going further with that theme, I think that we should further agree
> that if, in the judgement of the relevant reviewers/committers, any
> given patch submitted for CF4 seems as though it may destabilize the
> tree in a way that will significantly prolong beta, or if the patch as
> submitted seems likely to need follow-on patches before the feature is
> release-worthy, we will punt it to 8.6. Obviously, these will be
> judgement calls, but I think it will be easier to make them if we
> state the ground rules and expectations up front. I'd also like to
> add that the decision should be made based on *having read the patch*
> rather than any theory about the relative value of the feature. We
> seem to have consensus on a time-based release, so let's try to
> release on time.
Yes.
> I'd also like to propose that we schedule an open-items-fest for
> 3/15-4/14.
Ok, great. That sounds terrific.
BTW, it was my thought that we'd have more than one CFM for CF4. We'll
need it.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com
