Re: Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?
Date
Msg-id 4F0BA8DF.2000704@2ndQuadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 1/9/12 1:37 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Shouldn't it have been closed weeks ago?

It's still "In Progress" mostly because I flaked out for the holidays 
after pushing to get most things ready for commit or returned a few 
weeks ago, but not quite nailing it shut.  I'm back to mostly full-time 
on this starting tomorrow, the remains I can deal with will get sorted 
out then.

The main question still lingering about is the viability of pushing out 
an 9.2alpha3 at this point.  That was originally scheduled for December 
20th.  There was a whole lot of active code whacking still in progress 
that week though.  And as soon as that settled (around the 30th), there 
was a regular flurry of bug fixes for a solid week there.  A quick 
review of recent activity suggests right now might finally be a good 
time to at least tag alpha3; exactly what to do about releasing the 
result I don't have a good suggestion for.

There were 31 things committed during CF 2011-11.  It feels to me like 
there was a larger balance of refactoring compared to feature changes in 
this one compared to most.  That seems like something we'd like to get 
more regression testing on, but at the same time there's not too many 
new things for people to be excited about trying.


-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Next
From: Joachim Wieland
Date:
Subject: Sending notifications from the master to the standby