On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 21:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> > The more I think about it, the more I feel that where we failed for 8.3 was
> > not having a short 8.4 cycle lined up, which would give more freedom to bump
> > patches to the next release.
>
> Heh. The reason we wanted a short 8.3 cycle was so we could push out
> patches that had been held over from 8.2. We are going to have exactly
> no credibility if we tell Simon et al "we're pushing these patches to
> 8.5, but don't worry, it'll be a short release cycle".
>
> I think the best thing we could do overall is to set release dates and
> stick to them. If your patch is not ready, well, at least it will get
> out in a defined amount of time. Right now, the *real* problem with it
> being pushed to the next release is you don't know how successful some
> other guy will be at persuading us to delay the next release.
+1
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 -
http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
