Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4
Date: 2007-10-23 22:17:51
Message-ID: 471E730F.5050108@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>

+1 on both counts.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-10-23 22:19:42 Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-10-23 22:15:58 Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4