Re: Project scheduling issues (was Re: Per tuple overhead, - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Project scheduling issues (was Re: Per tuple overhead,
Date
Msg-id 200206110956.g5B9upv15456@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Project scheduling issues (was Re: Per tuple overhead,  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > > 2. Once Branch created, any *partially implemented* features will get
> > >    rip'd out of the -STABLE branch and only fixes to the existing, fully
> > >    implement features will go in
> >
> > Now, that is an interesting idea.
> 
> Ya, I thought it was when you -and- Tom proposed it :)
> 
> I quote from a message on June 8th:
> 
> =======================
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > So, I we should:
> > >     Warn people in July that beta is September 1 and all features
> > >     have to be complete by then, or they get ripped out.
> >
> > I thought that was more or less the same thing I was proposing...
> ========================

What I thought was interesting was having the CURRENT branch keep the
feature so the guy could continue development, even if we disable in
STABLE.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: Timestamp/Interval proposals: Part 2
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: Timestamp/Interval proposals: Part 2