| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |
| Date: | 2003-06-23 14:43:38 |
| Message-ID: | 23340.1056379418@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> Here's a sure to be wildly unpopular suggestion:
> Make the deciding factor for the next release support of "foo" (foo can
> be win32, pitr, replication, 2PC, whatever...).
We've done that before (see WAL in 7.1), with unhappy results. The
fundamental problem with it is that towards the end of the cycle,
other developers don't know how to schedule their time, because they
don't know when feature freeze is really going to be. People end up
twiddling their thumbs while the schedule slips a few days at a time.
The target-date-based approach we've taken in the last couple of
releases seems much more productive.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2003-06-23 14:52:17 | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-23 14:35:18 | Re: ftp mirror |