On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On lör, 2010-01-09 at 14:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> If we accept large patches at the very end of the development cycle,
>> that's when people will submit them. You've previously criticized the
>> high proportion of the release cycle that is set aside for CommitFest
>> and beta, so I'm surprised to see you advocating for a policy that
>> seems likely to lengthen the time for which the tree is closed.
> Just to clarify: I am for sticking to the agreed dates. If some things
> are not ready by the necessary date plus/minus one, they won't make the
> release. If it's obvious earlier that something won't make the date, it
> shouldn't be committed, and maybe put on the backburner right now. But
> AFAICT, that's independent of when it was submitted. Some things that
> were submitted just the other day might be almost ready, some things
> that were first submitted many months ago are still not ready.
The portion of the schedule I'm worried about is the one where we go
to beta by March 7th.
I think we can get all the remaining large patches committed by
February 15th if Tom doesn't start working on the remaining open items
until February 15th - but then I do not think that we will have a beta
on March 7th.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tim Bunce||Date: 2010-01-09 21:40:22|
|Subject: Re: Feature patch 1 for plperl [PATCH]|
|Previous:||From: Tim Bunce||Date: 2010-01-09 21:27:03|
|Subject: Re: Initial refactoring of plperl.c - updated|