Thread: [HACKERS] Schedule and Release Management Team for PG10
The Postgres release team has decided that last year's appointment
of a Release Management Team worked pretty well, so we're going to
run the version-10 release cycle the same way. The members of the
RMT for this year will be Peter Eisentraut, Robert Haas, and Noah
Misch.
As previously agreed at the PGCon 2016 developers meeting, we'll
institute v10 feature freeze at the completion of the current
commitfest (end of this month). The RMT will target making the
10beta1 release in mid-May and 10.0 final release in September.
Attached for reference is the RMT charter as agreed to by the
pgsql-release list.
regards, tom lane
== Proposed Release Management Team Charter
This charter takes effect on 2017-03-31 and expires three weeks after the
PostgreSQL 10 final release.
Duties:
- Meet the deadlines pgsql-release@ sets for beta1 and final release.
- When the open items list has an unowned item, promptly inform the associated committer that he owns that item.
- Approve the creation of REL10_STABLE, the welcoming of PostgreSQL 11 submissions, and the resumption of CommitFests.
- Nag item owners to ensure forward progress.
Powers, exercisable by majority vote of the RMT, even in the face of no
consensus or contrary consensus:
- Approve the commit of a patch for the purpose of resolving an open item, including reversion commits.
- Add or remove open items.
- Enact a feature freeze.
Before using one of those powers, the Release Management Team (RMT) should
make more than zero effort to let normal community processes arrive at a
sufficient answer. Given the aggressive schedule, the RMT may nonetheless use
these powers quickly and often.
pgsql-release@ appoints the RMT and has the power to dissolve it.
Members are Peter Eisentraut, Robert Haas, and Noah Misch.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > As previously agreed at the PGCon 2016 developers meeting, we'll > institute v10 feature freeze at the completion of the current > commitfest (end of this month). This means, as I understand it, that no new features should be committed by anyone past the end of March, unless for some reason the RMT decides to grant an extension for some particular case. Instead, we should work on clearing out the open items list, so that we can go to beta in a timely fashion. https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_10_Open_Items If you have posted a bug fix patch for something committed to this release, and it hasn't been committed yet, please a link to the thread to the open items list. If you have reported an issue with a v10 commit and it has not been fixed yet, please similarly add a link to the open items list. If, on the other hand, you committed a patch that has generated one or more open items, please fix them. Logical replication is currently leading in the contest for "most unaddressed open items" with 8, followed closely by SCRAM authentication with 6 and partitioning with 5. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> As previously agreed at the PGCon 2016 developers meeting, we'll
>> institute v10 feature freeze at the completion of the current
>> commitfest (end of this month).
> This means, as I understand it, that no new features should be
> committed by anyone past the end of March, unless for some reason the
> RMT decides to grant an extension for some particular case.
Well, formally speaking, the RMT declares the onset of feature freeze.
I expressed an opinion that they'd probably do so at the end of March,
but it's their call as to exactly when to do so, and whether to grant
any limited extensions/exceptions.
My own thought is that there's room for at least a few days' slop in
the end date of the final commitfest, depending on what patches remain
open and what the prospects are for getting them done. (In the past
we've sometimes let the final fest stretch on indefinitely, which is
clearly the Wrong Thing; but that doesn't mean that the Right Thing is
to say that it ends at 2017-04-01 00:00 UTC no matter what.) The RMT
should look at things in another day or two and make a judgment call
about that.
> Instead,
> we should work on clearing out the open items list, so that we can go
> to beta in a timely fashion.
Certainly that should be the focus as soon as we are in feature freeze.
regards, tom lane
Tom, all, * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > My own thought is that there's room for at least a few days' slop in > the end date of the final commitfest, depending on what patches remain > open and what the prospects are for getting them done. (In the past > we've sometimes let the final fest stretch on indefinitely, which is > clearly the Wrong Thing; but that doesn't mean that the Right Thing is > to say that it ends at 2017-04-01 00:00 UTC no matter what.) The RMT > should look at things in another day or two and make a judgment call > about that. I tend to agree with this, though I am also of the opinion that it'd be better to get a date out there earlier rather than later. There's a number of hackers at PGConf.US who are trying their best to review patches and keep things moving while also giving talks and being involved in the conference. There's at least a couple of patches which I can think of off-hand that I'd like to continue working through the process to get them committed and only require another day or so of effort, but finding that time in-between activities at the conference, while possible, isn't ideal. Thanks! Stephen
Tom Lane wrote: > My own thought is that there's room for at least a few days' slop in > the end date of the final commitfest, depending on what patches remain > open and what the prospects are for getting them done. (In the past > we've sometimes let the final fest stretch on indefinitely, which is > clearly the Wrong Thing; but that doesn't mean that the Right Thing is > to say that it ends at 2017-04-01 00:00 UTC no matter what.) The RMT > should look at things in another day or two and make a judgment call > about that. I was rather surprised to see the March commitfest declared to exactly one month and feature freeze immediately thereafter. Last time around we left 2 weeks between CF end and feature freeze; the previous one I think we had the final CF last two months. Not stretch on indefinitely, but we know the final CF for a cycle takes more effort than previous ones, so it seems reasonable to give more time. We have a large number of patches still waiting for review. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:35:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Well, formally speaking, the RMT declares the onset of feature freeze. > I expressed an opinion that they'd probably do so at the end of March, > but it's their call as to exactly when to do so, and whether to grant > any limited extensions/exceptions. > > My own thought is that there's room for at least a few days' slop in > the end date of the final commitfest, depending on what patches remain > open and what the prospects are for getting them done. (In the past > we've sometimes let the final fest stretch on indefinitely, which is > clearly the Wrong Thing; but that doesn't mean that the Right Thing is > to say that it ends at 2017-04-01 00:00 UTC no matter what.) The RMT > should look at things in another day or two and make a judgment call > about that. I agree we need to extend, and not wait until any longer to do it. We have people at the NYC conference and I don't want their memory of the conference being that they were stressed trying to work on closing the commit fest --- that could lead to bad memories and them declining future conference attendance. If that delays our final release for a week, it is worth it. I propose we go for a week delay in closing the commit fest, and we decide right now. Ideally I like to to see delay in one-week increments _and_ announce that a week before each deadline. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > I agree we need to extend, and not wait until any longer to do it. We > have people at the NYC conference and I don't want their memory of the > conference being that they were stressed trying to work on closing the > commit fest --- that could lead to bad memories and them declining > future conference attendance. If that delays our final release for a > week, it is worth it. > > I propose we go for a week delay in closing the commit fest, and we > decide right now. Ideally I like to to see delay in one-week increments > _and_ announce that a week before each deadline. Summary of opinions on this thread: - Tom thinks the RMT should consider extending by a day or two. - Stephen agrees. - Alvaro proposes allowing more time next time, but not to change the dates for this time. - Andres and Dave agree with Alvaro's surprise about the selected date, but it's not clear whether they want to change things now or just for next time. - Robert thinks that the RMT shouldn't presume to vary the dates without a broad consensus, and somewhat favors not extending. Other views? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> I propose we go for a week delay in closing the commit fest, and we
>> decide right now. Ideally I like to to see delay in one-week increments
>> _and_ announce that a week before each deadline.
> Summary of opinions on this thread:
> - Tom thinks the RMT should consider extending by a day or two.
FWIW, while I'm sure we had a reason (back at the Ottawa 2016 meeting)
for limiting the final 'fest to just a month, I'm quite sure we did
not allow for most of the senior hackers being at a conference during
the last week of that time. So I now concur with Bruce's suggestion
that a week's delay would be suitable.
In past years this sort of decision would have been taken by -core,
and given the number of core members who have already weighed in
on this thread, I think Bruce's proposal would have passed easily.
But since we just delegated the setting of feature freeze to the RMT,
they are the ones who ought to do it.
regards, tom lane
Robert Haas wrote: > - Alvaro proposes allowing more time next time, but not to change the > dates for this time. FWIW I didn't realize that the NY conference was ongoing, so count me for postponing the end of the current CF. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > >> I propose we go for a week delay in closing the commit fest, and we > >> decide right now. Ideally I like to to see delay in one-week increments > >> _and_ announce that a week before each deadline. > > > Summary of opinions on this thread: > > > - Tom thinks the RMT should consider extending by a day or two. > > FWIW, while I'm sure we had a reason (back at the Ottawa 2016 meeting) > for limiting the final 'fest to just a month, I'm quite sure we did > not allow for most of the senior hackers being at a conference during > the last week of that time. So I now concur with Bruce's suggestion > that a week's delay would be suitable. Agreed, same here. Thanks! Stephen
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
-- Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> I propose we go for a week delay in closing the commit fest, and we
>> decide right now. Ideally I like to to see delay in one-week increments
>> _and_ announce that a week before each deadline.
> Summary of opinions on this thread:
> - Tom thinks the RMT should consider extending by a day or two.
FWIW, while I'm sure we had a reason (back at the Ottawa 2016 meeting)
for limiting the final 'fest to just a month, I'm quite sure we did
not allow for most of the senior hackers being at a conference during
the last week of that time. So I now concur with Bruce's suggestion
that a week's delay would be suitable.
+1.
On 03/30/2017 10:59 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us > <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>> > writes: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us <mailto:bruce@momjian.us>> wrote: > >> I propose we go for a week delay in closing the commit fest, and we > >> decide right now. Ideally I like to to see delay in one-week increments > >> _and_ announce that a week before each deadline. > > > Summary of opinions on this thread: > > > - Tom thinks the RMT should consider extending by a day or two. > > FWIW, while I'm sure we had a reason (back at the Ottawa 2016 meeting) > for limiting the final 'fest to just a month, I'm quite sure we did > not allow for most of the senior hackers being at a conference during > the last week of that time. So I now concur with Bruce's suggestion > that a week's delay would be suitable. > > > +1. +1 -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development