From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Phil Currier <pcurrier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | 9.5 release scheduling (was Re: logical column ordering) |
Date: | 2014-12-11 05:35:32 |
Message-ID: | 16944.1418276132@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> On 12/10/2014 05:14 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>>> But the scheduling of commits with regard to the 9.5 schedule actually
>>> opens a relevant question: When are we planning to release 9.5? Because
>>> If we try ~ one year from now it's a whole different ballgame than if we
>>> try to go back to september. And I think there's pretty good arguments
>>> for both.
>> This should really be on its own thread for discussion... I'm leaning,
>> at the moment at least, towards the September release schedule. I agree
>> that having a later release would allow us to get more into it, but
>> there's a lot to be said for the consistency we've kept up over the past
>> few years with a September (our last non-September release was 8.4).
> Can we please NOT discuss this in the thread about someone's patch? Thanks.
Quite. So, here's a new thread.
MHO is that, although 9.4 has slipped more than any of us would like,
9.5 development launched right on time in August. So I don't see a
good reason to postpone 9.5 release just because 9.4 has slipped.
I think we should stick to the schedule agreed to in Ottawa last spring.
Comments?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2014-12-11 05:54:49 | Re: inherit support for foreign tables |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-12-11 05:14:53 | Re: double vacuum in initdb |