On 20 January 2016 at 17:03, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > But I'm not very sure that we're talking about the same set of people > > here. If we're going to go to a system where nobody's allowed to > > commit anything for the next release until the current release is > > finalized, then we'd better have some procedure for making sure that > > happens relatively quickly. And the procedure can't be that the > > people who are hot to get started on the next release have to bat > > cleanup for the people who don't have time to fix the bugs they > > introduced previously. Because *that* would be manifestly unfair. > > You're assuming that the people who are hot to get started on the next > release are different from the people who don't have time to fix the bugs > they introduced previously. IME it's mostly the same people. >
That sounds like all people who wanted to start the next release had bugs that needed fixing. That was definitely not the case for 9.5. I don't think we can allow the release to be slowed down by people that need to perform actions and yet aren't available. Ultimately, we should decide to simply turn off that feature and release anyway. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
