"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: > > With the branch delayed they will have to say "Oh, there's a new > release. I wonder when they will branch so I can start building the new > branch."
Doesn't that just mean they should be sure to announce the branch loudly when it happens? I can't really see them failing to do that anyways. Whether the branch or not is just an procedural detail that only committers need to be concerned with. I think this is all projected anguish over something related. Tom says "if there were people chomping at the bit to commit" but that just raises the question: why aren't there people chomping at said bit? There are certainly tons of patches queued up in Bruce's "held for 8.4" queue. Is it that just that we have queued up 8.3.x patches occupying committers attention? Or is it that reviewers and committers are exhausted from 8.3 and not quite ready yet to tackle new patches? Either way we need to find a solution that doesn't overload reviewers and committers and makes continual progress against pending patches. If we don't keep the patch queue short now we're only going to have a repeat of the last-minute rush at feature-freeze time again. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
