Re: Closing out CommitFest 2009-11 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Thanks Greg - nice job! :-)

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> CommitFest 2009-11 is now closed, having committed 27 patches in 33 days.
>  For comparison sake, 2009-09 committed 20 patches in 29 days, 2009-07 37
> patches in 34 days, and 2008-09 29 patches in 30 days.  The much bigger
> 2008-11 involved 58 patches going on for months, the bulk of it committed 28
> patches in 36 days.
>
> Seems pretty consistent at this point:  at the average patch contribution
> size seen over the last year, about one of those gets committed per day once
> we enter a CommitFest.  I didn't bother accounting for things that were
> committed outside of the official dates, so it's actually a bit worse than
> that, but that gives a rough idea that's easy to remember.
>
> Also, just based on the last three CFs, 42% of patches are either returned
> with feedback or rejected (with quite a bit more CF to CF variation).  The
> working estimation figure I'd suggest is that once a CF reaches 50 incoming
> patches it's unlikely that will finish in a month.
>
> CommitFest 2010-01, the last one for 8.5, begins on January 15th, 2010.
>  I'll be out of commission with projects by then, so unless Robert wants to
> reprise his role as CF manager we may need to get someone else involved to
> do it.  Between the CF application and how proactive everyone involved is at
> this point (almost all authors, reviewers, and committers do the bulk of the
> state changes and link to messages in the archives for you), the job of
> running things does keep getting easier.  And the guidlines for how to be
> the CF manager are pretty nailed down now--you could just execute on a
> pretty mechanical plan and expect to make useful progress.  It's still a lot
> of time though.  I've never had an appreciation for exactly how many
> messages flow through this list like I do now, after a month of needing to
> read and pay attention to every single one of them.
>
> For those of you still furiously working on a patch with that deadline, if
> you have a large patch and it's not already been reviewed in a previous
> CommitFest, I wouldn't give you good odds of it being even looked at during
> that one.  There doesn't seem to be any official warning of this where
> people will likely notice it, but this topic has been discussed on the list
> here.  Large patches submitted just before the deadline for a release have
> not fared very well historically.  Recognizing that, there's really no
> tolerance for chasing after them (at the expense of postponing the beta)
> left for this release.  Just figured I'd pass along that warning before
> somebody discovers it the hard way, by working madly to finish their
> submission up only to see it get kicked to the next version anyway.
>
> --
> Greg Smith    2ndQuadrant   Baltimore, MD
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
> greg@2ndQuadrant.com  www.2ndQuadrant.com
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>



--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com