Thread: Addition of extra commit fest entry to park future patches
Hi all, I guess that commit fest 2016-03 is going to begin soon, at which point nobody will be able to add new patches because 1) already closed CF don't accept them. 2) A CF currently running neither. I propose to create an extra CF, called "Future" or similar where people will be able to park the patches submitted for the 9.7 cycle. This will be renamed later on as the first CF of 9.7 once the development schedule for 9.7 is decided. Thoughts? -- Michael
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I guess that commit fest 2016-03 is going to begin soon, at which
point nobody will be able to add new patches because
1) already closed CF don't accept them.
2) A CF currently running neither.
I propose to create an extra CF, called "Future" or similar where
people will be able to park the patches submitted for the 9.7 cycle.
This will be renamed later on as the first CF of 9.7 once the
development schedule for 9.7 is decided.
Thoughts?
Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more clear.
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I guess that commit fest 2016-03 is going to begin soon, at which > > point nobody will be able to add new patches because > > 1) already closed CF don't accept them. > > 2) A CF currently running neither. > > I propose to create an extra CF, called "Future" or similar where > > people will be able to park the patches submitted for the 9.7 cycle. > > This will be renamed later on as the first CF of 9.7 once the > > development schedule for 9.7 is decided. > > Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current > tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or > something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more clear. +1 to both names suggested by Magnus. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
-- Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I guess that commit fest 2016-03 is going to begin soon, at which
> > point nobody will be able to add new patches because
> > 1) already closed CF don't accept them.
> > 2) A CF currently running neither.
> > I propose to create an extra CF, called "Future" or similar where
> > people will be able to park the patches submitted for the 9.7 cycle.
> > This will be renamed later on as the first CF of 9.7 once the
> > development schedule for 9.7 is decided.
>
> Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current
> tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or
> something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more clear.
+1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
We do need to pick one of them :)
Anybody else with preferences?
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> I'd suggest we either name it based on the current tentative >>> date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or >>> something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it >>> more clear. >> >> +1 to both names suggested by Magnus. > > We do need to pick one of them :) > > Anybody else with preferences? I would prefer to see a consistent namimg pattern (i.e., 2016-09) and rename it if we reschedule. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 3/1/16 3:28 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current > > tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or > > something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more clear. > > +1 to both names suggested by Magnus. > > > > We do need to pick one of them :) I'm good with 9.7-first. I presume it can be renamed later to fit the standard scheme? -- -David david@pgmasters.net
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current
>>> tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or
>>> something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more
>>> clear.
>> +1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
> We do need to pick one of them :)
> Anybody else with preferences?
2016-09 would be in keeping with all previous CF names. 9.7-first sounds
like it'd be more future-proof in case we change the schedule, but I'm not
sure about that either ... what if we decide over the summer that parallel
query is so cool that we should rename 9.6 to 10.0?
On balance I'd go with 2016-09, but I'm not going to argue very hard.
BTW, is there an ability to rename a CF once it's in the app? Seems like
that would reduce the stakes here.
regards, tom lane
On 3/1/16 3:35 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>>> I'd suggest we either name it based on the current tentative >>>> date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or >>>> something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it >>>> more clear. >>> >>> +1 to both names suggested by Magnus. >> >> We do need to pick one of them :) >> >> Anybody else with preferences? > > I would prefer to see a consistent namimg pattern (i.e., 2016-09) > and rename it if we reschedule. I'm fine with that - it does help set expectations. -- -David david@pgmasters.net
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current
>>> tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or
>>> something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more
>>> clear.
>> +1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
> We do need to pick one of them :)
> Anybody else with preferences?
2016-09 would be in keeping with all previous CF names. 9.7-first sounds
like it'd be more future-proof in case we change the schedule, but I'm not
sure about that either ... what if we decide over the summer that parallel
query is so cool that we should rename 9.6 to 10.0?
On balance I'd go with 2016-09, but I'm not going to argue very hard.
BTW, is there an ability to rename a CF once it's in the app? Seems like
that would reduce the stakes here.
Yes, it's trivial to rename. That's the only advantage of our ugly url scheme which uses the surrogate key in the url instead of the actual name of the CF :)
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Yes, it's trivial to rename. That's the only advantage of our ugly url > scheme which uses the surrogate key in the url instead of the actual name of > the CF :) 2016-09 has been created then: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/ People, feel free to park future patches there. -- Michael
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-09 has been created then: > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/ > People, feel free to park future patches there. I think that should be in status "open" rather than "future". -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company