Re: Remaining beta blockers

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Remaining beta blockers
Date: 2013-05-06 15:28:42
Message-ID: 5187CC2A.6070607@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 05/06/2013 08:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Per my other mail, I think adding an AMV option at this time is
> inadvisable. I could go either way on removing or keeping the
> is_scannable function --- anybody else have an opinion on that point?
>
> Which of us is going to commit this? We're running low on time ...

As a my two cents, I have been watching this thread and the concern on
timeline is bothering me. I fully understand our want to get into Beta
and I know we don't want to slip schedule too much but quality is
important. It is what makes our project what it is more than any other
value we hold.

I also know we already slipped the beta once but we are not a
corporation, we do not have shareholders and nobody can fire us. If we
need to push it again for quality, shouldn't we?

Sincerely,

JD

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2013-05-06 15:29:11 Re: Remaining beta blockers
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2013-05-06 15:23:07 Re: 9.3 release notes suggestions