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

Re: CF3+4

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CF3+4
Date: 2013-01-17 05:01:26
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 15:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think a realistic answer might be to admit that we've slipped quite
> a bit.  Set the end date of CF3 to perhaps end of January, do triage
> the first week of February, and then start CF4 after that, about three
> or four weeks later than planned.

I'd suggest moving all the open items from CF3 into CF4 and start CF4
right away.  If we did that, the number of patches in CF4 will be about
the same as in the last commit fests of the previous years, so it
wouldn't be completely off track.

If you postpone the start of the last commit fest to mid-February, I'd
expect that we will have a much larger number of patches.

In response to

  • Re: CF3+4 at 2013-01-16 20:13:50 from Tom Lane


  • Re: CF3+4 at 2013-01-17 06:06:13 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2013-01-17 05:47:40
Subject: Re: Hot Standby conflict resolution handling
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2013-01-17 04:52:31
Subject: Re: bad examples in pg_dump README

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group