| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4 |
| Date: | 2007-10-23 22:09:00 |
| Message-ID: | 4373.1193177340@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Anyway, is there anyone who thinks the "cycle the queue every 6 weeks or 2
> months or suitable short period" is a *bad* idea? It might be hard to pull
> off, but we won't know until we try.
It seems worth a try --- we can certainly abandon it easily if it
doesn't work.
Personally I feel every six weeks would be too short: we'd be talking
only a month of work between commit-fests. I like a two-month cycle
partly because it wouldn't rotate relative to the calendar: we'd always
know that the first half of every odd-numbered month, or something like
that, is commit-fest time.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-10-23 22:09:39 | Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-23 21:58:28 | Re: Latin vs non-Latin words in text search parsing |