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
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 |