Robert Haas wrote: > > Wow, that is a large list. ?Getting this all on a wiki is really what > > needed to happen. ?I can't keep an open list current enough to be > > useful. > > Ah, glad you like. I thought you'd been arguing the other side of > that point with me for several days, but no matter - it seems like we > might be converging on some kind of consensus here.
I prefer to do as little as possible. > >> I think we should also boot everything in the "pre-existing bugs" > >> category, and the first two items from the "questions" category, which > >> don't seem important enough to worry about at this stage of the game. > >> That would leave us with 14 items, all of which look reasonably > >> relevant and 8.4-related. > > > > I think pushing "pre-existing bugs" to 8.5 is a mistake, first from a > > software quality standpoint, and second because we are going to have a > > lots of downtime during beta while we wait for feedback, so we can work > > on some of these issues then. ?These things are not going to be any > > easier to fix during 8.5 than now so let's make 8.4 as good as we can > > without overly-delaying it. > > What is the threshold for "has to be fixed before we can go to beta" > versus "has to be fixed before release"? I'm not opposed to fixing > the bugs, but it seems like every day that we postpone cutting a beta > is one more day until release, and so I think our immediate goal > should be to fix all of the things that need to be fixed before beta > can start. Well, we don't want to be changing user-visible behavior during beta, but anything we would fix in a minor release can be fixed during beta too. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
