On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 10/21/13 9:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I am not 100% sure, but what's the point of the CF if we're not actually
>> reviewing patches that wouldn't get review without it? So I guess it's
>> not starting the next one before we've finished - which we obviously
>> haven't in this case - the last one.
>
> The point is to get people to do some reviewing in the first place. If
> people don't want to review certain things or are exhausted after a
> month, extending the commitfest is not going to achieve much.
I agree with that, but I agree with Andres, too. CommitFests are
supposed to be time-bounded, and they're also supposed to get a
certain amount of work done, and they're supposed to do it using
all-volunteer labor. Guaranteeing all of those things simultaneously
clearly isn't possible; and yet some past CommitFest managers have
been far more successful at it than others. I think it's more of an
art than a science.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
