Tom Lane wrote:
>Although we've dropped the idea of letting the ARC problem drive a very
>short 8.1 cycle, I would still like to see us shoot for a relatively
>short 8.1 cycle --- less than a year for sure. The main reason is that
>I think we'll be flushing out performance and feature issues in the
>Windows port that we cannot reasonably back-patch into 8.0.*. PITR also.
>In general it seems to me that 8.1 will need to have a consolidation and
>fill-in-the-blanks flavor after what we did for 8.0, and that will be
>helped by a shorter devel cycle.
>As a proposal: feature freeze maybe early summer (June or July), beta
>maybe Aug/Sep, final as always "when it's ready" (maybe Oct/Nov with
>a good tailwind).
That sounds good. I would think that lots of users probably won't use
the Windows port in production until 8.1 (performance reasons, paranoia
etc...) I would hate to make put such a long delay in their adoption
One thing to consider while discussing the length of the cycle is what
features are people planning on putting in? The 8.0 cycle had to be
long due to the many huge improvements. I'm not aware of any 8.1 plans
that are that ambitious, so why plan a long cycle when there are no
features requiring it? Am I missing something?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-02-25 16:21:06|
|Subject: Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2005-02-25 16:09:35|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Development Plans|