Re: Schedule for 9.5alpha1

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
> It is nearly obvious problem, and bugfix patch already exists.

My current strategy is to post these items on the "PostgreSQL 9.5 Open
Items" page, even when the issue is totally trivial -- maybe that
makes a small difference, even if it sometimes feels inappropriate for
small items.

There are some other items with clear or clear-ish fixes beyond the
ones that I mentioned. For one further example not involving UPSERT,
ISTM based on pgCon discussion that "Arguable RLS security bug,
EvalPlanQual() paranoia" can be fixed with a well written doc patch,
once we figure out exactly how to explain the issue, which should be
straightforward. For another, the rest of the jsonb stuff is now
almost open-and-shut (again, this conclusion is based on discussion
during pgCon, in this instance with Andrew). That fix involves an
actual small adjustment to semantics. This is just the stuff I'm
involved in. I think that the experience of myself and Kaigai-san with
bug fixes are representative.

Some committers request that I post simple bugfixes to the next
commitfest. That might help with making sure that they eventually get
some attention, which makes some sense at a different time in the
cycle, but it does not help at all with making sure that they get
timely attention when we're up against a deadline for putting out a
release (even if it is an alpha). Besides, even when a release is not
upcoming, my strong personal preference is to fix bugs ASAP.

I'm tired of having to chase down known bugs when a patch has been
around for a long time, and an actual fix is blocking on committer
availability -- sometimes I feel the need to privately twist someone's
arm just to get something done that should be straightforward. If this
is the way things are supposed to work, we should document known bugs
in the alpha release notes.

--
Peter Geoghegan