Re: gcov coverage data not full with immediate stop

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: gcov coverage data not full with immediate stop
Date: 2020-05-12 17:10:08
Message-ID: 28587.1589303408@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:04 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah. Traditionally we've waited till the start of the next commitfest
>> (which I'm assuming is July 1, for lack of an Ottawa dev meeting to decide
>> differently). But it seems like things are slow enough that perhaps
>> we could branch earlier, like June 1, and give the committers a chance
>> to deal with some of their own stuff before starting the CF.

> The RMT discussed this question informally yesterday. The consensus is
> that we should wait and see what the early feedback from Beta 1 is
> before making a final decision. An earlier June 1 branch date is an
> idea that certainly has some merit, but we'd like to put off making a
> final decision on that for at least another week, and possibly as long
> as two weeks.

> Can that easily be accommodated?

There's no real lead time needed AFAICS: when we are ready to branch,
we can just do it. So sure, let's wait till the end of May to decide.
If things look bad then, we could reconsider again mid-June.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-05-12 17:35:53 Re: [PATCH] hs_standby_disallowed test fix
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-05-12 17:06:22 Re: gcov coverage data not full with immediate stop