On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> This mostly revoles around the problem of trying to finalize 9.1 while
> applying 9.2 patches --- no surprise we don't have enough cycles to do
> that.
Well, sorta. The fact that Josh got his head bitten off for
suggesting that we weren't going to get this CommitFest finished
without some more committer involvement could have happened at any
time in the release cycle (and has, in the past).
I think the question of whether we can overlap release cycles is a bit
of a red herring. We had our first CommitFest for 9.1 in July 2010,
and that ran quite smoothly, though it was also a release-cycle
overlap. One big difference this time is that Tom and Peter haven't
participated in this CommitFest very much at all (and I've done less
as well, due to other commitments), whereas they did last time around.So I think the real question is not "how much
bandwidthdo we have as
a community?" but rather "what works for the key people who make the
process function?" and maybe "how can we induce other people to make
the kind of time commitment that Tom and Peter have in the past?".
I think the fact that we've managed to get 18 patches committed - and
will probably squeeze in a few more - despite Tom and Peter being busy
is pretty good. But it certainly emphasizes the extent to which we
depend on a relatively small number of contributors to do an awful lot
of the work.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
