Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> >> We discussed doing this at the very beginning of 8.4 release cycle > >> >> and, the more I think about it, the more I think it's not fair not to > >> >> go ahead and do it. ?Otherwise, we're rewarding people for ignoring a > >> >> guideline that was discussed, and punishing (1) the people who have > >> >> refrained from submitting large patches at the last minute, (2) people > >> >> who would like to see their already-committed patches released on a > >> >> reasonable time frame, and (3) people who don't want the tree to be > >> >> frozen for a near-eternity while we shake out all the bugs that these > >> >> large, last-minute patches introduce. ?We're also increasing the > >> >> chances the the final release will contain undiscovered bugs, since > >> >> they will have had ONLY the beta period, and no part of the > >> >> development cycle, to shake out. > >> > > >> > Doing what? ?Not including HS an SR in 8.5? > >> > >> No. ?Pushing off large patches that weren't submitted until the last > >> CommitFest to the next release. > > > > Sorry, I am still confused. ?"Last" is the previous commit-fest, > > November, or the final commit-fest, January. ?Please restate your > > opinion in full. ?Thanks. > > Argh, sorry. > > Pushing off large patches that weren't submitted prior to the final > CommitFest of the development cycle, namely, the January CommitFest.
Yea, I thought that was standard policy since we started commit-fests. -- 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
