On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I do not think commitfest length is the problem (though surely it's not
> working as intended). What happened with 9.5 is we forked the 9.6
> development branch on June 30th, with the expectation of releasing in
> September, and then couldn't release in September because nobody had done
> any significant amount of stabilization work. Instead we had the 2015-07
> commitfest. And the 2015-09 commitfest. And the 2015-11 commitfest.
But I'm not very sure that we're talking about the same set of people
here. If we're going to go to a system where nobody's allowed to
commit anything for the next release until the current release is
finalized, then we'd better have some procedure for making sure that
happens relatively quickly. And the procedure can't be that the
people who are hot to get started on the next release have to bat
cleanup for the people who don't have time to fix the bugs they
introduced previously. Because *that* would be manifestly unfair.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
