Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > The original plan was that anything not 100% ready to commit at the
> > beginning of the last commit fest will be bumped to the next release,
> > and beta would start right after the first commit fest, a week or two
> > after the submission deadline. We failed to enforce that.
>
> Uh, no, that's historical revisionism, cf
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.4_Development_Plan
> We expected and scheduled for a longer-than-normal final commitfest.
> There's two months in the original schedule, whereas expectation was
> that earlier ones would be less than a month (which mostly they were).
>
> What we did say, and didn't enforce, was that patches too large to be
> reviewed in a reasonably short time would be bounced. We thought we'd
> be able to make that stick if large patches got reviewed and applied
> in an incremental fashion over the series of commitfests. For one
> reason or another that never happened for SEPostgres. We should try
> to analyze exactly why not, although I think the bottom-line answer
> there has to do with nobody being particularly eager to work on it.
I think SE-Postgres development timeline of going from feature-complete
to "give us the features we want" really hampred things, and the fact
that we didn't give SE-Postgres much feedback earlier, for the same
reason (feature complete to "give us the features we want").
>
> Hot Standby had a different timeline, and quite frankly should have
> never been seriously considered for 8.4 at all. But I think that
> as long as SEPostgres was looming on the horizon, we didn't see the
> point of being strict about deadlines ...
Hot Standby wasn't in the original plan for 8.4, but someone suggested
"Hey, let's try.", and we did.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
