On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I have asked that we maintain the Reasonableness we have always had > about how the feature freeze date was applied. An example of such > reasonableness is that if a feature is a few days late and it is > important, then it would still go into the release. An example of > unreasonableness would be to close the feature freeze on a > predetermined date, without regard to the state of the feature set in > the release. To date, we have always been reasonable and I don't want > to change the process in the way Robert has suggested we should > change.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I wouldn't want to put out a release without a good feature set, either, but we don't have that problem. Getting them out on a fairly regular schedule without a really long feature freeze has traditionally been a bit harder. I believe that over the last few releases we've actually gotten better at integrating larger patches while also sticking closer to the schedule; and I'd like to continue to get better at both of those things. I don't advocate blind adherence to the feature freeze date either, but I do prefer to see deviations measured in days or at most weeks rather than months; and I have a lot more sympathy for the "patch submitted and no one got around to reviewing it" situation than I do for the "patch just plain got here late" case. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
