Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4
Date: 2007-10-23 22:09:00
Message-ID: 4373.1193177340@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Anyway, is there anyone who thinks the "cycle the queue every 6 weeks or 2
> months or suitable short period" is a *bad* idea? It might be hard to pull
> off, but we won't know until we try.

It seems worth a try --- we can certainly abandon it easily if it
doesn't work.

Personally I feel every six weeks would be too short: we'd be talking
only a month of work between commit-fests. I like a two-month cycle
partly because it wouldn't rotate relative to the calendar: we'd always
know that the first half of every odd-numbered month, or something like
that, is commit-fest time.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-10-23 22:09:39 Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-10-23 21:58:28 Re: Latin vs non-Latin words in text search parsing