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

Re: damage control mode

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: damage control mode
Date: 2010-01-08 18:34:27
Message-ID: 603c8f071001081034k72e61d9fg4cbb3f62041a4f5f@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> > You can't move from commitfest to beta until all _known_ bugs are
>> >> > fixed/addressed, and you can't move from beta to RC using the same
>> >> > criteria.
>> >>
>> >> Hmm. ?For 8.4, I don't think we actually fixed "all" known bugs - I
>> >> think we made a decision about which ones had to be fixed and which
>> >> ones we were going to push off, and then did so.
>> >
>> > Right, we have to decide which ones get pushed to the TODO list, but
>> > also consider that several obvious bugs got into the 8.4.0 release,
>> > which is something we are going to try to avoid this time.
>>
>> True.  It's worth being clear, though I'm sure we're on the same
>> wavelength here, that those bugs didn't come from the open items list.
>>  They came from stabilization issues related to large patches
>> committed in that release cycle.  That's why it seems to me that
>> pushing off some of the large patches that were not submitted until
>> the final CommitFest is likely to speed up the release.
>
> Yes, these were things that should have showed up in testing, but
> didn't.
>
>> We discussed doing this at the very beginning of 8.4 release cycle
>> and, the more I think about it, the more I think it's not fair not to
>> go ahead and do it.  Otherwise, we're rewarding people for ignoring a
>> guideline that was discussed, and punishing (1) the people who have
>> refrained from submitting large patches at the last minute, (2) people
>> who would like to see their already-committed patches released on a
>> reasonable time frame, and (3) people who don't want the tree to be
>> frozen for a near-eternity while we shake out all the bugs that these
>> large, last-minute patches introduce.  We're also increasing the
>> chances the the final release will contain undiscovered bugs, since
>> they will have had ONLY the beta period, and no part of the
>> development cycle, to shake out.
>
> Doing what?  Not including HS an SR in 8.5?

No.  Pushing off large patches that weren't submitted until the last
CommitFest to the next release.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-01-08 18:36:44
Subject: Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2010-01-08 18:32:36
Subject: Re: Feature patch 1 for plperl [PATCH]

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