On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:29:58 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > I'd suggest we have multiple checkpoints during the cycle.
> > Checkpoint is a "patch queue blitz" where we stop developing and
> > reduce the queue to nothing. Perhaps a two-week period where
> > everybody helps reduce the queue, not just Tom and Bruce. Every
> > outstanding patch gets told what they need to do in order to get it
> > committed. FF is then just the last in a series of checkpoints.
> > Suggest we do a checkpoint every 2 months.
>
> I like this idea ...
As do I. It will also allow us to decrease the amount of changes that
have to be reviewed for regressions during testing.
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.
With a 2 months checkpoint, we can release when we want. When we feel
we have enough and not have a ginormous back log of patches to go
through.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the
> PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
