Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see how timing has anything to do with this. You could have
>>>>> added it between beta1 and beta2 after sufficient hackers
>>>>> discussion.
>>>> Uh, it *was* after beta1.
>>>>
>>> Oh, so it didn't hold up beta1 --- that's good.
>>>
>>>
>> No it's not.
>>
>> Can somebody please explain to me what beta means if you can commit new
>> stuff after it has been declared?
>
> Yeah, I'd like to know that as well. And specifically what kind of stuff
> it is that's ok...
I hate to say this - but this "adding completely new steff after or
immediatly before beta" business really scares the hell out of me and
somewhat starts to resemble the mysql way of adding new features at will
and even during stable release trains ...
There is no point in having any kind of feature freeze or even a
PatchStatus Page if we keep adding stuff (as useful as it might be) that
late in the cycle ...
Stefan
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
