On 2014-11-11 10:52:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2014-11-11 10:18:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We need to get moving if we want to have RC1 out before the holiday season
> >> starts. Accordingly, the core committee has agreed that we should wrap it
> >> next week (usual timing: wrap Monday 17th for announcement Thursday 20th).
>
> > Ah cool. So there won't be a corresponding set of backbranch releases
> > which will instead be done together with 9.4.0?
>
> No. I don't think we have our ducks in a row for back-branch updates just
> yet.
Right. I'm mainly asking because there's some unlogged table crash
recovery issues I want to get fixed before the next set of backbranch
releases.
It's also been a while since the last back branch release. Nothing
egregiously bad, but a fair number of moderately annoying things.
Apropos back branches: I think 52eed3d426 et al wasn't reverted and we
didn't really agree on a solution?
> In any case, it would be good to get some real-world testing of
> b2cbced9e before we unleash that on stable-branch users ;-)
Heh.
> BTW, we try to avoid doing back-branch updates at the exact same time as
> a major .0 release anyway. In the first place, that confuses the PR
> messaging: we'd rather it be all about the new release and not about bugs
> fixed in old branches. In the second place, as an ex-packager I know that
> there are usually some gotchas in packaging a new major release, so it's
> better that packagers not have back-branch updates on their plates at the
> same time.
Makes sense.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
