On mån, 2011-02-07 at 12:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ...
> >
> > Really? I thought the idea for the last CF of a development cycle was
> > that it kept going till we'd dealt with everything. Arbitrarily
> > rejecting stuff we haven't dealt with doesn't seem fair.
>
> Uh, we did that with 8.4 and it was a disaster. The CommitFest lasted
> *five months*. We've been doing schedule-based CommitFests ever since
> and it's worked much better.
The previous three commit fests contained about 50 patches each and
lasted one month each. The current commit fest contains about 100
patches, so it shouldn't be surprising that it will take about 2 months
to get through it.
Moreover, under the current process, it is apparent that reviewing is
the bottleneck. More code gets written than gets reviewed. By
insisting on the current schedule, we would just push the growing review
backlog ahead of ourselves. The solution (at least short-term, while
maintaining the process) has to be to increase the resources (in
practice: time) dedicated to reviewing relative to coding.
