Re: commit fests (was Re: primary key error message) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: commit fests (was Re: primary key error message)
Date
Msg-id 1847.1264177155@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: commit fests (was Re: primary key error message)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: commit fests (was Re: primary key error message)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm not sure whether you're stating a position that's been agreed to
> by -core or some other group, or just expressing your own opinion, but
> I think feature freeze should be the beginning of the last CommitFest,
> not the end.

I think traditionally we understood "feature freeze" to be the point at
which we stopped *committing* new features, not the point at which it
was too late to *submit* them.  So by that definition feature freeze
starts at the end of the last CF.

I agree with Peter that things are a bit different in the CF process.
Rather than a binary frozen-or-not state, we now have a gradual
congealing (if you will), where the size of an acceptable new feature
gets smaller as we get towards the end of the development cycle.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aidan Van Dyk
Date:
Subject: Re: 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Access to dynamic SQL in PL/pgSQL