Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> I don't really buy the double patching argument. Back patching becomes
>> more difficult when there has been significant code drit, but we surely
>> don't expect that much drift in the next week or two. Back patching when
>> there has been no code drift is pretty simple.
>>
>
> Well, it's not hard, but it is tedious. Bruce and I, who are the people
> most likely to bear the brunt of such tedium, both voted to wait a week
> or so before branching. Peter did not bother to vote.
>
>
I suspect that you made this decision thinking that it didn't affect
anybody else much. But it does affect buildfarm members. The buildfarm
requires manual adjustment for each new branch to be built. Up to now
(as Peter showed) owners have been able to say "Oh, there's a new
release. I'll start building the new branch". With the branch delayed
they will have to say "Oh, there's a new release. I wonder when they
will branch so I can start building the new branch." I suspect there are
some buildfarm owners who don't read -hackers religiously, and who will
be somewhat in the dark.
This probably wasn't on the core team's horizon - IIRC Dave is the only
member of core who runs a buildfarm member.
cheers
andrew
