Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: damage control mode

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Subject: Re: damage control mode
Date: 2010-01-12 01:03:25
Message-ID: 22530.1263258205@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> There are three reasons I'd probably be comfortable with that; 1) the CF 
>> process means we've likely had more eyes on the code going in than in past 
>> releases.

> The reality check is that was had commit-fests for 8.4 development and
> 8.4.0 had more easily-identified bugs than most of our previous .0
> releases which didn't use commit-fests.

They weren't "easily identified", or we'd have found them before 8.4.0
release.  I think the notion that 8.4.0 was much worse than previous .0
releases is largely bogus, anyway; we've just forgotten all the bugs in
older releases ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2010-01-12 01:14:04
Subject: Re: damage control mode
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2010-01-12 00:54:31
Subject: Re: Compression Library and Usages

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group