| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4 |
| Date: | 2007-10-23 17:47:39 |
| Message-ID: | 87sl41u3ic.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I know I just love it when a customer breaks something and I ask what
> changed and it is 56 different things ;)
>
> My question is.. with a checkpoint every 2 months, would it make it
> very easy to release every 6 (or 4 or 3 or 9) months? I am not saying
> we "have" to but it certainly opens up the possibility to the argument
> I made.
We could release "alpha" releases. But that assumes that these reviews
actually result in stuff getting committed even if they're not 100% complete.
I think that would be a good thing but I don't think everyone else agrees.
Also, not all reviewers are committers.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-10-23 17:55:50 | Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-23 17:40:39 | dead code in wparser_def state machine? |