Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>,
Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-05-17T15:05:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:31 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> 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. And we're never going to get out of it until we find a way to get > the contents of the CommitFest application down to a more reasonable > size and level of complexity. There's just no way everyone's up for > that level of pain. I'm not sure not up for that level of pain. Yeah, we clearly need to get the patch list to a point of manageability, but I don't agree that abandoning time-boxed CFs will improve anything. regards, tom lane