| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.5 release timetable, again |
| Date: | 2009-08-31 17:45:33 |
| Message-ID: | 4A9BC5ED020000250002A642@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Yep, the bottom line here is that patches get into CVS, but issues
> come up related to the patch, and we keep looking for good fixes,
> but once the final commit-fest is over, we _have_ to fix these
> issues.
If, hypothetically, it might hold up the release for two weeks while
such issues are sorted out, might it be better to revert and say the
patch missed the release because it wasn't workable enough at the end
of the last CF to allow a beta release to be generated? If the net
result was that a feature or two were delayed until the next release,
but all developers had two more weeks of development time in the next
release cycle, it seems like reverting would be a net gain.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-08-31 17:57:42 | Re: 8.5 release timetable, again |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-08-31 17:42:17 | Re: 8.5 release timetable, again |