On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Can we make this the last post on this topic please? -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: 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
