Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> >> We discussed doing this at the very beginning of 8.4 release cycle
> >> >> and, the more I think about it, the more I think it's not fair not to
> >> >> go ahead and do it. ?Otherwise, we're rewarding people for ignoring a
> >> >> guideline that was discussed, and punishing (1) the people who have
> >> >> refrained from submitting large patches at the last minute, (2) people
> >> >> who would like to see their already-committed patches released on a
> >> >> reasonable time frame, and (3) people who don't want the tree to be
> >> >> frozen for a near-eternity while we shake out all the bugs that these
> >> >> large, last-minute patches introduce. ?We're also increasing the
> >> >> chances the the final release will contain undiscovered bugs, since
> >> >> they will have had ONLY the beta period, and no part of the
> >> >> development cycle, to shake out.
> >> >
> >> > Doing what? ?Not including HS an SR in 8.5?
> >>
> >> No. ?Pushing off large patches that weren't submitted until the last
> >> CommitFest to the next release.
> >
> > Sorry, I am still confused. ?"Last" is the previous commit-fest,
> > November, or the final commit-fest, January. ?Please restate your
> > opinion in full. ?Thanks.
>
> Argh, sorry.
>
> Pushing off large patches that weren't submitted prior to the final
> CommitFest of the development cycle, namely, the January CommitFest.
Yea, I thought that was standard policy since we started commit-fests.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
