Re: Plan for feature freeze?

On Sat, 1 May 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We should also think about what exactly we mean by "feature freeze".
>
> > As I remember, feature freeze means no new features, just fixes, and
> > beta means release of the first beta that we want for wide testing.
>
> I guess I wasn't clear: what I was asking for was some discussion about
> the criteria we should use for advancing to each of those phases. In
> particular it's not real clear what "just fixes" should be interpreted
> to allow for. The remaining work for Win32 could all be called "just
> fixes" since it will not add any user-visible "features".

I think its the scope (or maybe risk?) of the 'fixes' that tends to be the
deciding point ... for instannce, the sync/fsync work you've committed to
for the Win32 stuff, IMHO, is a very large "fix" that I'd not like to see
happen while in Beta ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664