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

Re: Official Freeze Date for 7.5: July 1st, 2004

From: Bob(dot)Henkel(at)hartfordlife(dot)com
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Official Freeze Date for 7.5: July 1st, 2004
Date: 2004-06-01 16:15:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sounds like a project manager type should be put into place to organize
this information into a straight stream instead of 50 random mists of water

|         |           Andrew Dunstan         |
|         |           <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>  |
|         |           Sent by:               |
|         |           pgsql-hackers-owner(at)pos|
|         |             |
|         |                                  |
|         |                                  |
|         |           06/01/2004 11:10 AM    |
|         |                                  |
  |                                                                                                                              |
  |       To:       pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org                                                                                 |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                    |
  |       Subject:  Re: [HACKERS] Official Freeze Date for 7.5: July 1st, 2004                                                   |

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> Just so that everyone is aware, we are going to push the freeze date
> for 7.5 to July 1st.
> Although we feel that there are enough improvements and features
> already in place for 7.5, Tom's felt that if we gave it that extra
> month, we could also have PITR in place for 7.5 ...
> If anyone is working on other features that they feel can be polished
> off before the July 1st deadline, we would be most happy to
> incorporate those as well, but do recommend submitting patches for
> review *sooner*, rather then later, so that any recommended
> corrections can be addressed before teh deadline.

I welcome this, as I always thought June 1 was too soon. However, I
think that the process by which the date was eventually arrived at was

I would modestly suggest that there should be a minimum period of notice
of a feature freeze - 6 weeks or 2 months seems about right to me, given
the development cycle we seem to have, and the fact that many of the
critical things people are working on are quite large.

(I'd also like to see someone who would get regular progress reports
from people who have undertaken to work on large/critical items, so that
we don't get into a position of thinking they will make a cutoff date
and then finding out late in the piece that they will not, but maybe
that's a discussion for another day).



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information.  If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all copies.

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2004-06-01 16:44:37
Subject: Re: Win32, PITR, nested transactions, tablespaces
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2004-06-01 16:10:25
Subject: Re: Official Freeze Date for 7.5: July 1st, 2004

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