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

Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent
Date: 2005-02-25 16:20:34
Message-ID: 421F5052.8020402@zeut.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 
plans. 

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?

Matthew


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-02-25 16:21:06
Subject: Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2005-02-25 16:09:35
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Development Plans

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