-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- --On Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:00:29 +0100 Magnus Hagander
<magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 08:36:47PM -0500, 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 assume this vote was taken out on -core? I don't mind -core deciding on
> this, not at all, but I would appreciate it if you would post the result of
> the vote on -hackers. It makes a lot of difference with an open-ended
> "we'll branch sometmie later" and a "we talked about it, and we decided
> we'll branch in one to two weeks unless something unusual comes up".
Actually, "branch in one to two weeks" has been the status quo almost since day
one ... not that I'm against "branch on release", I'm only saying that we've
followed this same procedure on branching since ... forever.
- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHqTeE4QvfyHIvDvMRAlisAKCxactS3Xp6V9/PbOOn11vhPioQaACgm+Ck
psuY9S9odAYdj91T5/QlYDc=
=CdzR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
