On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 7:40 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:31 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > To my mind, the point of the time-boxed commitfests is to provide
> > a structure wherein people will (hopefully) pay some actual attention
> > to other peoples' patches. Conversely, the fact that we don't have
> > one running all the time gives committers some defined intervals
> > where they can work on their own stuff without feeling guilty that
> > they're not handling other people's patches.
> >
> > If we go back to the old its-development-mode-all-the-time approach,
> > what is likely to happen is that the commit rate for not-your-own-
> > patches goes to zero, because it's always possible to rationalize
> > your own stuff as being more important.
>
> We already have gone back to that model. We just haven't admitted it
> yet.
I've worked on teams that used the short-timebox CF calendar to
organize community work, like Tom describes. That was a really
positive thing for us.
Maybe it feels different from the committer point of view, but I don't
think all of the community is operating on the long-timebox model, and
I really wouldn't want to see us lengthen the cycles to try to get
around the lack of review/organization that's being complained about.
(But maybe you're not arguing for that in the first place.)
--Jacob
