On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 21:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Treat <xzi...@users.sourceforge.net> writes: > > The more I think about it, the more I feel that where we failed for 8.3 was > > not having a short 8.4 cycle lined up, which would give more freedom to > > bump > > patches to the next release. > > Heh. The reason we wanted a short 8.3 cycle was so we could push out > patches that had been held over from 8.2. We are going to have exactly > no credibility if we tell Simon et al "we're pushing these patches to > 8.5, but don't worry, it'll be a short release cycle". > > I think the best thing we could do overall is to set release dates and > stick to them. If your patch is not ready, well, at least it will get > out in a defined amount of time. Right now, the *real* problem with it > being pushed to the next release is you don't know how successful some > other guy will be at persuading us to delay the next release.
+1 Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane > -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
