"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> With the branch delayed they will have to say "Oh, there's a new
> release. I wonder when they will branch so I can start building the new
> branch."
Doesn't that just mean they should be sure to announce the branch loudly when
it happens? I can't really see them failing to do that anyways.
Whether the branch or not is just an procedural detail that only committers
need to be concerned with. I think this is all projected anguish over
something related. Tom says "if there were people chomping at the bit to
commit" but that just raises the question: why aren't there people chomping at
said bit? There are certainly tons of patches queued up in Bruce's "held for
8.4" queue.
Is it that just that we have queued up 8.3.x patches occupying committers
attention? Or is it that reviewers and committers are exhausted from 8.3 and
not quite ready yet to tackle new patches?
Either way we need to find a solution that doesn't overload reviewers and
committers and makes continual progress against pending patches. If we don't
keep the patch queue short now we're only going to have a repeat of the
last-minute rush at feature-freeze time again.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication
support!
