| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Last gasp |
| Date: | 2012-04-07 22:53:06 |
| Message-ID: | 4F80C552.5080606@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/07/2012 06:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 7 April 2012 22:20, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> In short, the idea of strongly calendar-driven releases looks more
>> and more attractive to me the more times we go through this process.
>> If your patch isn't ready on date X, then it's not getting into this
>> release; but there'll be another bus coming along before long.
>> Stretching out release cycles to get in those last few neat features
>> just increases the pressure for more of the same, because people don't
>> know how long it will be to the next release.
> I hope that that policy will not be applied without some degree of
> discrimination.
If we are to have time based releases, then I assume it won't, it will
be pretty much a hard and fast rule.
I admit I haven't been a fan in the past, but I can see advantages, not
least being predictability of release times. It would be nice to be able
to say "In June" when asked when the next release will be, as I often am.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-04-07 23:50:53 | Re: Last gasp |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-07 22:51:22 | Re: Last gasp |