Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > I realize there is the perception that the large patches that were
> > eventually rejected held up the release, but for all the patches I
> > can think of, they were not rejected immediately _because_ we had
> > other valid patches to work on. Once all valid patches were
> > applied, we were quickly able to reject the large unready patches.
> > So, rejecting the large patches earily would not have significantly
> > moved the release date earlier.
> Like Robert, I'm extremely skeptical of this claim, for the same
> However, even the *possibility* that this could be true is pretty
> scary. If we need to effectively shut down new development for seven
> months at the end of a release, in addition to the interim commit
> fests, we'd better get a handle on why, so that can change. To what
> do you attribute the extended time needed to handle the final CF?
> How can that be made better?
We had many patches that had been through previous commit-fests with
minor adjustments and we had to finalize them before we could close the
final commit-fest. To be clear I am talking about patches that were
eventually applied in 8.4, not patches that were rejected for 8.4.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2009-07-01 17:35:10|
|Subject: 8.3 PLpgSQL Can't Compare Records?|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2009-07-01 17:31:41|
|Subject: Re: 8.5 development schedule|