| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
| 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 16:24:48 |
| Message-ID: | 5823.1109348688@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> 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?
The subtext here is that people are trying to decide what they intend to
shoot for in this cycle, and so they are asking Core what the schedule
target is. You really misunderstand the dynamics. 8.0 didn't start out
to be what it ended up being; there was no master plan, and never has
been. The most organization we've ever had is for Core to set a feature
freeze target date well in advance.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-02-25 16:24:50 | Re: [HACKERS] Development Plans |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-02-25 16:21:06 | Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent |