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

Re: Feature freeze progress report

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Naz Gassiep" <naz(at)mira(dot)net>
Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Marc Munro" <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report
Date: 2007-05-01 01:54:28
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Naz Gassiep" <naz(at)mira(dot)net> writes:

> Even if the patch inventory wasn't kept right up to date, this system
> could potentially help many regression issues or bugs to surface sooner,

I just don't understand what this would accomplish. People run regressions
before submitting anyways. They can't run them on all architectures but bugs
that only affect some architectures are uncommon.

This seems to be merely institutionalizing having a large backlog of patches
which survive for long periods of time. But even in that situation I don't see
what it buys us. Detecting bitrot isn't terribly helpful and it doesn't help
us actually deal with the bitrot once it's happened.

  Gregory Stark

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2007-05-01 07:56:15
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report
Previous:From: Naz GassiepDate: 2007-05-01 01:33:40
Subject: Re: Feature freeze progress report

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