Addition of extra commit fest entry to park future patches
Hi all,
I guess that commit fest 2016-03 is going to begin soon, at which
point nobody will be able to add new patches because
1) already closed CF don't accept them.
2) A CF currently running neither.
I propose to create an extra CF, called "Future" or similar where
people will be able to park the patches submitted for the 9.7 cycle.
This will be renamed later on as the first CF of 9.7 once the
development schedule for 9.7 is decided.
Thoughts?
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
I guess that commit fest 2016-03 is going to begin soon, at which
point nobody will be able to add new patches because
1) already closed CF don't accept them.
2) A CF currently running neither.
I propose to create an extra CF, called "Future" or similar where
people will be able to park the patches submitted for the 9.7 cycle.
This will be renamed later on as the first CF of 9.7 once the
development schedule for 9.7 is decided.Thoughts?
Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current
tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or
something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more clear.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
wrote:Hi all,
I guess that commit fest 2016-03 is going to begin soon, at which
point nobody will be able to add new patches because
1) already closed CF don't accept them.
2) A CF currently running neither.
I propose to create an extra CF, called "Future" or similar where
people will be able to park the patches submitted for the 9.7 cycle.
This will be renamed later on as the first CF of 9.7 once the
development schedule for 9.7 is decided.Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current
tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or
something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more clear.
+1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
--
�lvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Michael Paquier <
michael.paquier@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
I guess that commit fest 2016-03 is going to begin soon, at which
point nobody will be able to add new patches because
1) already closed CF don't accept them.
2) A CF currently running neither.
I propose to create an extra CF, called "Future" or similar where
people will be able to park the patches submitted for the 9.7 cycle.
This will be renamed later on as the first CF of 9.7 once the
development schedule for 9.7 is decided.Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current
tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or
something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it moreclear.
+1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
We do need to pick one of them :)
Anybody else with preferences?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I'd suggest we either name it based on the current tentative
date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or
something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it
more clear.+1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
We do need to pick one of them :)
Anybody else with preferences?
I would prefer to see a consistent namimg pattern (i.e., 2016-09)
and rename it if we reschedule.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 3/1/16 3:28 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
Magnus Hagander wrote:Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current
tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or
something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more clear.+1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
We do need to pick one of them :)
I'm good with 9.7-first. I presume it can be renamed later to fit the
standard scheme?
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:Magnus Hagander wrote:
Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current
tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or
something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more
clear.
+1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
We do need to pick one of them :)
Anybody else with preferences?
2016-09 would be in keeping with all previous CF names. 9.7-first sounds
like it'd be more future-proof in case we change the schedule, but I'm not
sure about that either ... what if we decide over the summer that parallel
query is so cool that we should rename 9.6 to 10.0?
On balance I'd go with 2016-09, but I'm not going to argue very hard.
BTW, is there an ability to rename a CF once it's in the app? Seems like
that would reduce the stakes here.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 3/1/16 3:35 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I'd suggest we either name it based on the current tentative
date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or
something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it
more clear.+1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
We do need to pick one of them :)
Anybody else with preferences?
I would prefer to see a consistent namimg pattern (i.e., 2016-09)
and rename it if we reschedule.
I'm fine with that - it does help set expectations.
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <
alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the
current
tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first"
or
something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more
clear.+1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
We do need to pick one of them :)
Anybody else with preferences?2016-09 would be in keeping with all previous CF names. 9.7-first sounds
like it'd be more future-proof in case we change the schedule, but I'm not
sure about that either ... what if we decide over the summer that parallel
query is so cool that we should rename 9.6 to 10.0?On balance I'd go with 2016-09, but I'm not going to argue very hard.
BTW, is there an ability to rename a CF once it's in the app? Seems like
that would reduce the stakes here.
Yes, it's trivial to rename. That's the only advantage of our ugly url
scheme which uses the surrogate key in the url instead of the actual name
of the CF :)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
Yes, it's trivial to rename. That's the only advantage of our ugly url
scheme which uses the surrogate key in the url instead of the actual name of
the CF :)
2016-09 has been created then:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/
People, feel free to park future patches there.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
2016-09 has been created then:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/
People, feel free to park future patches there.
I think that should be in status "open" rather than "future".
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers