| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Plan for feature freeze? |
| Date: | 2004-05-01 21:52:45 |
| Message-ID: | 16574.1083448365@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We should also think about what exactly we mean by "feature freeze".
> As I remember, feature freeze means no new features, just fixes, and
> beta means release of the first beta that we want for wide testing.
I guess I wasn't clear: what I was asking for was some discussion about
the criteria we should use for advancing to each of those phases. In
particular it's not real clear what "just fixes" should be interpreted
to allow for. The remaining work for Win32 could all be called "just
fixes" since it will not add any user-visible "features".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-05-01 21:54:45 | Re: Plan for feature freeze? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-01 21:43:06 | Re: mingw configure failure workaround |