Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>> Rejecting stuff because we haven't gotten round to dealing with it in
>>> such a short period of time is a damn good way to limit the number of
>>> contributions we get. I don't believe we've agreed at any point that
>>> the last commitfest should be the same time length as the others
>>
>> News to me.
>>
>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.1_Development_Plan
>
> Yes, and? It doesn't say beta 1 at the after a month of the last
> commitfest, which is the milestone which marks the end of development.
> It says alpha 4, and possibly more alphas. It's pretty clear that it
> is expected that development and polishing will continue past the 20th
> February.

You're moving the bar.  It DOES say that the CommitFest will end on
February 15th.  Now, if we want to have a discussion about changing
that, let's have that discussion (perhaps on a thread where the
subject has something to do with the topic), but we DID talk about
this, it WAS agreed, and it's been sitting there on the wiki for
something like 8 months.  Obviously, there will continue to be
polishing after the CommitFest is over, but that's not the same thing
as saying we're going to lengthen the CommitFest itself.

I think we need to step back a few paces here and talk about what
we're trying to accomplish by making some change to the proposed and
agreed CommitFest schedule.  If there's a concern that some patches
haven't been thoroughly reviewed at this point, then I think that's a
fair concern, and let's talk about which ones they are and see what we
can do about it.  I don't believe that's the case, and it's certainly
not the case for sync rep, which was submitted in an unpolished state
by Simon's own admission, reviewed and discussed, then sat for three
weeks without an update.  So perhaps the concern is that sync rep is a
make or break for this release.  OK, then fine, let's talk about
whether it's worth slipping the release for that feature.  I have no
problem with either of those conversations, and I'm happy to offer my
opinions and listen to the opinions of others, and we can make some
decision.

I think, though, that we need to be explicit about what we're doing,
and why we're doing it.  I have been working hard on this CommitFest
for a long time (since approximately a month before it started) at the
cost of development projects I would have liked to have worked on,
because I knew we were going to be overwhelmed with patches.  I have
helped as many people as I can with as many patches as I have been
able to.  I think that finishing on time (or at least as close to on
time as we can manage) is important to our success as a development
community, just as having good features is.  We don't have to agree on
what the best thing to do is, but I would certainly appreciate it if
everyone could at least credit me with acting in good faith.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company