| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: commit fests (was Re: primary key error message) |
| Date: | 2010-01-22 14:10:54 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f071001220610i612d7b98y1bfba8aa72ca25dd@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On tor, 2010-01-21 at 18:05 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Well, we used to have the idea of a feature freeze ... is that going
>> to apply at the end of the commitfest?
>
> Feature freeze was used to discourage the submission of very big patches
> shortly before beta. The commit fest process has IMO alleviated this
> concern. Beta is still the definite cutoff; and the closer we get to
> beta, the smaller the acceptable changes become. I think that formula
> basically applies throughout the entire cycle.
I'm not sure whether you're stating a position that's been agreed to
by -core or some other group, or just expressing your own opinion, but
I think feature freeze should be the beginning of the last CommitFest,
not the end.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexey Klyukin | 2010-01-22 14:13:32 | Re: warn in plperl logs as... NOTICE?? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-01-22 13:58:05 | Re: commit fests (was Re: primary key error message) |