On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Stephen Frost<sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> As I mentioned in the core discussion, I'm a bit concerned that this
>> would have the effect of choking off development too soon. We could
>> have a situation where nothing major is supposed to be getting worked
>> on from Nov 15 to mid-May, which seems much too long. So "very small"
>> seems too strict. Robert's suggestion of a 1000-line cutoff might be
>> workable though.
>
> Maybe we should have a hard rule now, but then leave ourselves the
> option to relax it (perhaps not publically) once we actually get to the
> last CF? I dunno, just a thought. I do share your concern about not
> choking off development for too long, but it sure seems like we've
> always got a big patch or two that we're trying to get into the next
> release near the end..
With all due respect, you guys are worrying about the wrong problem.
I suspect it's much more likely that we're going to want to postpone
900-line patches than it is that you're going to want to not postpone
1100-line patches. If by some chance Tom wants to commit an 1100-line
patch submitted three weeks after the start of the last CommitFest,
he'll explain why he wants to do it and in all likelihood the rest of
us will shrug our shoulders and say "OK, do it". But I seriously
doubt that's gonna happen. What's a lot more likely is that Tom will
look at a 900-line patch submitted three weeks BEFORE the start of the
last CommitFest and say "this is going to break a lot of stuff, we
should bounce this to 8.6", and everyone will say "no, it's a great
feature, commit the broken code now! now, we say!".
...Robert
