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

Re: 8.5 development schedule

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: 8.5 development schedule
Date: 2009-07-01 14:30:39
Message-ID: 4A4B2CBF02000025000281AD@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote: 
 
> I realize there is the perception that the large patches that were
> eventually rejected held up the release, but for all the patches I
> can think of, they were not rejected immediately _because_ we had
> other valid patches to work on.  Once all valid patches were
> applied, we were quickly able to reject the large unready patches.
> 
> So, rejecting the large patches earily would not have significantly
> moved the release date earlier.
 
Like Robert, I'm extremely skeptical of this claim, for the same
reasons.
 
However, even the *possibility* that this could be true is pretty
scary.  If we need to effectively shut down new development for seven
months at the end of a release, in addition to the interim commit
fests, we'd better get a handle on why, so that can change.  To what
do you attribute the extended time needed to handle the final CF?
How can that be made better?
 
-Kevin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-07-01 14:31:06
Subject: Re: Extensions User Design
Previous:From: Toshihiro KitagawaDate: 2009-07-01 14:25:31
Subject: Did COPY performance regression solve in 8.4rc2?

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