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