On 04/07/2012 06:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 7 April 2012 22:20, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> In short, the idea of strongly calendar-driven releases looks more
>> and more attractive to me the more times we go through this process.
>> If your patch isn't ready on date X, then it's not getting into this
>> release; but there'll be another bus coming along before long.
>> Stretching out release cycles to get in those last few neat features
>> just increases the pressure for more of the same, because people don't
>> know how long it will be to the next release.
> I hope that that policy will not be applied without some degree of
> discrimination.
If we are to have time based releases, then I assume it won't, it will
be pretty much a hard and fast rule.
I admit I haven't been a fan in the past, but I can see advantages, not
least being predictability of release times. It would be nice to be able
to say "In June" when asked when the next release will be, as I often am.
cheers
andrew
