On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Well, that's pretty much saying we won't release before September.
> Yup, that's what I think. In fact I think September might be
> optimistic. This is what happens when you fork early and allow
> developers to start focusing on new development instead of testing
> the release branch.
I call bullshit. The six items in the "code" section of the open
items list were reported 14, 5, 5, 1, 27, and 0 days ago. The 27-day
old item is purely cosmetic and there's absolutely zero evidence that
Simon hasn't done it yet because he's been busy working on 9.1
development. It's much more likely that he hasn't gotten around to
taking care of that (and his outstanding 9.1 patch) because he's been
busy with everything else in his life other than pgsql-hackers. The
remaining items have an average age of precisely 5 days, which hardly
sounds like we've been sitting on our hands, especially when you
consider that both you and Heikki have been on vacation for longer
than that. And it's not as if I haven't been following those issues,
either. Had you and Heikki and Peter fallen down a well more or less
permanently, I would have patched about half of those bugs by now.
The fact that I haven't done so is not because I'm busy working on 9.1
development, but because I respect your expertise and wish to have the
benefit of it so as to reduce the chances that I will break things,
or, for that matter, fix them in a way that's adequate but not the one
you happen to prefer.
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2010-07-27 21:08:47|
|Subject: Re: page corruption on 8.3+ that makes it to standby|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-07-27 20:24:56|
|Subject: Re: Copy path in Dynamic programming |