On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> 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.
> Sorry, I am still confused. "Last" is the previous commit-fest,
> November, or the final commit-fest, January. Please restate your
> opinion in full. Thanks.
Pushing off large patches that weren't submitted prior to the final
CommitFest of the development cycle, namely, the January CommitFest.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2010-01-08 18:59:35|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication and postmaster signaling|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-01-08 18:38:20|
|Subject: Re: damage control mode|