Re: Development schedule

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Development schedule
Date: 2005-02-26 13:13:08
Message-ID: 2132.24.211.165.134.1109423588.squirrel@www.dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian said:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> > Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> If this were an ordinary devel cycle then I'd be fine with it
>> >> running a year, but I think we really do need to plan for a shorter
>> >> than normal cycle so we can clean up 8.0 kinks in a reasonably
>> >> timely fashion.
>>
>> > Let's see how much 8.0 cleanup we need. At this point I haven't
>> > seen any major things needing cleanup.
>>
>> However, people are asking us for a schedule target now; "wait and
>> see" isn't the answer they need. My feeling is that we should bet on
>> there being some issues, rather than bet on there not being any.
>
> Uh, they want to know now?

YES! Yes yes yes! I try to plan my time, and the feature freeze data is very
important in that planning.

Also, regardless of the issues Tom raised, 18 months is too long a release
cycle, IMNSHO. If you do that and you take the time from feature freeze of
release n to release date of release n+1, a developer could wait 2 years
from the date of submission to see his/her feature in a release. 2 years is
an eternity in this game. Just my $0.02 worth.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-02-26 15:47:52 Re: idea for concurrent seqscans
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-02-26 12:45:37 Re: idea for concurrent seqscans