On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> ... Well, the current CommitFest ends in one week, ...
>>>>
>>>> Really? I thought the idea for the last CF of a development cycle was
>>>> that it kept going till we'd dealt with everything. Arbitrarily
>>>> rejecting stuff we haven't dealt with doesn't seem fair.
>>>
>>> Uh, we did that with 8.4 and it was a disaster. The CommitFest lasted
>>> *five months*. We've been doing schedule-based CommitFests ever since
>>> and it's worked much better.
>>
>> Rejecting stuff because we haven't gotten round to dealing with it in
>> such a short period of time is a damn good way to limit the number of
>> contributions we get. I don't believe we've agreed at any point that
>> the last commitfest should be the same time length as the others
>
> News to me.
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.1_Development_Plan
Yes, and? It doesn't say beta 1 at the after a month of the last
commitfest, which is the milestone which marks the end of development.
It says alpha 4, and possibly more alphas. It's pretty clear that it
is expected that development and polishing will continue past the 20th
February.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
