Re: Plan for feature freeze?

Tom Lane wrote:
> We should also think about what exactly we mean by "feature freeze".
> I've been using it as a shorthand for "we don't think we'll need any
> more major code changes". But depending on how high-level your notion
> of "feature" is, it could be that fairly major code changes could still
> be acceptable. For instance if "feature" == "Win32 native port" then
> all of the work still needed for the Win32 port might be argued to be
> acceptable as post-feature-freeze work. (I don't think this is actually
> sensible, mind you, since it would be silly to stop other feature
> development while Win32 still needs so much work. My point is just that
> we haven't defined "feature freeze" very well.)
>
> In the past there has been little if any daylight between feature freeze
> and start of beta --- in fact, IIRC we did not distinguish these
> concepts at all until the last release or two. It wouldn't be a bad
> idea to try to nail down the terms of discussion a bit better.

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.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073